Social Media Producer – Jonathon Hutchinson & There’s No ‘Me’ In Social Media! – Alex Gibson

Jonathon’s presentation describing his experience in researching social media was quite interesting and insightful.

Jonathon’s point about “listening to your crowd”, was something that I took from it, as he discussed how important it is to know who your audience is, what they want, what you are doing that is engaging them and how better you can engage with them. Researching your audience is definitely important in knowing how best to approach them with your work.

I also found it very interesting that the audience helped him decide on his project and that the way information was conveyed was two-ways and not just from him to them. The audience’s feedback was what fed into his work and helped him decide how he would approach it.

Another point he made was about a continuation of stimulating the project through twists and turns and creating plot developments out of the process of creating the project as this helps to keep the audience engaged. He discussed utilizing multiple formats for different purposes which I found interesting as we tend to think of Facebook and Twitter as the main forms of social media platforms which are used to give information to the audience and create a community, however there are many other platforms that could be used for different reasons, while still keeping the community together.

Jonathon also discussed how the social media producer becomes the curator of ‘prosumer works’, meaning works that have been created by the consumer or audience via social media. Thinking about audiences as users and creators is a good way to approach them as they feel more involved in the project.

The crowd-sourcing ‘By Design’ talk discussed the motivation of users becoming involved in online projects, with the main answer being that it is for the ‘attention economy’; meaning that people promote their own work through other people’s projects in a wider community and have a better chance of becoming noticed.

Alex Gibson’s stance on social media from an artist’s point of view was very interesting as he discussed how crowd-sourcing helped him fund his creation of ‘The Artbox’ which allows for looped art content to stream and connect with different technologies which previously didn’t occur.

I found his description of the ‘California Utopian version of social media’ really interesting as it is true that what most people contribute to social media is to make it seem like their life is better than what it actually is when in reality it can be compared to a ‘Greek tragedy’.

His point about social media facilitating people to have anything that they want and creating a psychotic nature in people was also interesting as he says that on social media people can enact all of their fantasies.

He was surprised by the way in which social media could facilitate artists in creating online communities and even funding his own technology, which goes to show that you should never underestimate the power of social media.

Write a blog post that makes connections between some of the ideas discussed in this documentary and the social media, participatory readings. The expected word length is around 500-750 words.

The ‘Us Now’ documentary discusses the rise of online communities that have formed with the purpose of helping other people, and bringing up the future possibility of the public having a participatory involvement in public service and government policies.

The documentary discusses different case studies of participatory online communities set up to help people. People are finding that they can receive more advice online in public forums by their peers rather than having to seek ‘good’ advice from one trusted person. An example of this is ‘Mumsnet’ which is a forum of mums who give advice to one another; demonstrating that people are putting more faith in different types of professionals than ever before. People are putting more trust in one another, sometimes even more so than in professionals or organisations. James Surowiecki (as mentioned in Hinton & Hjorth) discusses this idea that a large group of people can solve problems that individuals can’t (2004).

The documentary describes the democratic nature of the internet and the possibility that governments and public service offices can learn from online communities and create a more democratic real-life society. The online forums and communities are self-policed and are surprisingly quite safe as demonstrated through ‘couch surfing’. Habermas’ ideas (as mentioned in Hinton & Hjorth) of the internet as a public sphere and a marketplace of ideas is demonstrated here; debating that the internet is a democratic force. This democratic use and community building makes people feel empowered as they don’t need to consult professionals as they did in the past and can have their voice heard. The participatory nature of the internet has allowed once ‘passive’ audiences become ‘active users’ changing the way in which they engage with products and services (Lister 2009).

The main motivation for people to become involved in these online communities is the concept of the gift economy; the cost of you helping someone is low and you receive a lot of help in return. People network with another to assist each other, in the hope that someone will return the favour. This new approach to people treats them as competent individuals in comparison to society constantly telling them they are incompetent. Hinton & Hjorth discuss the way in which people have organised themselves for a cause or social issue to do good to other people. While the cases mentioned in the documentary are more localized and specific causes, they demonstrate the power of people and the possibility that this could be implemented in government.

Businesses and organisations are now having to adapt to this new empowered media audience; engaging in better and constant feedback and change to their products and services (Lister 2009). As mentioned in the documentary, those who don’t accept this change will lose their audience. This is also discussed in the context of the government which depends on passive audiences having to adopt their policies. The government feels threatened by the power of groups of individuals who can organise themselves to change things for the better. The Ebbsfleet Football Team is an example described in the documentary that gives their club fans the ability to choose the players in the team; the final decision is given to the Head Coach and has been a positive system.

This documentary about the rise in ‘Hactivism’ through the online group ‘Anonymous’ was very eye-opening. As I watched the film, I realised that I had heard some of the attacks that they made on corporations (Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Sony) but at the time remember thinking that they were in the wrong as it was presented in the media. I gained a better understanding of why these individuals chose to use the internet as a form of protest and think that their actions demonstrate the amazing power of communities formed on the internet.

How does this documentary alter your understanding of Internet?

While I do think the Internet is a democratic place in which people voice their opinions quite freely, I was a bit surprised that it had such a power to gather people in a community to attack an organisation. It’s always been quite apparent that people can form communities based on causes they are interested in and form physical protests on the streets, but how Anonymous was able to take down websites and ‘troll’ organisations really is remarkable.

How is social media used to create a community of people who share a similar interest and politics?

In this case, the sites ‘4chan’ and ‘/b/’ already had communities based on weird and sometimes grotesque things available on the internet, creating the memes that we have all come to know. They all posted anonymously allowing them the freedom to be whoever they wanted on the internet, and not feeling ashamed of their interests. These sites allowed like-minded people to share their common interests when they may not have been able to find that in the real world. The idea of ‘Anonymous’ then came out of the idea of what if all of the people posting on these sites was actually just one person? The Anonymous group then went on to prank people and websites targeting groups whose priorities didn’t sit well with the Anonymous pranksters. When Hal Turner a neo-Nazi attacked someone on ‘4chan’, Anonymous protected their own and shut down Turner’s ability to voice his racism to the public. This then began a wave of online attacks and physical protests for different causes by the Anonymous group. The one thing they had in common was the belief that the internet shouldn’t be censored and went after organisations and even governments who denied the public this right.

What ideas does this documentary raise in regards to designing an event that asks people to participate and become part of a community?

The documentary raises the idea that people with common interests will want to participate in events that they believe strongly about, or because they wish to meet other members of the community (which occurred for Anonymous members during the Scientology protests). It also brings up the idea that a community can be formed under one pretense which may be quite informal, but may change its attention to a more serious cause/idea. It illustrates that if you can create a community of like-minded individuals with the same beliefs, you can create a group where you speak as one, rather than hearing individual voices. While there were leaders of Anonymous, the members all lead causes in their own way and the voices heard was one of the people and not of leaders of the group, which goes back to the idea of flash mobs as needing to be organised by a leader, but the members don’t look to a leader and have one common goal/cause. Anonymous used a video which asked its members to act as a part of a common mission, which could be a tool used for our own event.

Hinton & Hjorth discuss the change of media audiences from once being passive, to now being active and participating in and even creating media content through the rise of social media. They discuss two different types of content; User Generated Content (UGC) which refers to content made by others that is forwarded on by users, and User Created Content (UCC) which refers to content that is made by users for others to consume. They discuss the use of social media in online activism or ‘click-activism’, its role in crisis management and journalism.

They suggest that social media hasn’t caused political events, but has changed the way in which they are organised; the affect rather than effect. The idea that the internet is built to be democratic and thus used for activism is proposed by John Gilmore as he believes it “interprets censorship damage and routes around it”. This democratic notion has meant that many protests have been organised through mobile technology and social media. “Participation reinforces the importance of offline realities in online behaviour” illustrates how the internet in many ways has empowered the public to speak out on real injustices and band communities together to work towards change. Participation is however subject to what the local social & cultural aspects define ‘participation’ to be as internet censorship in some countries would to us seem like people aren’t able to fully participate.

These groups are called ‘smart mobs’; “large groups of people who use mobile technologies as a way of connecting, allowing a group to act with collective intelligence”. Examples of these include the Arab Springs revolution in which members of the public uploaded video of protests and violence online, forcing dictators to step down or flee their positions.

While social media and mobile technologies can be used for good, they are open to being used negatively. While the internet is in many ways democratic and give the average citizen a voice, it can also be used by people in power to influence the public, “undermines the contention that the digital media is fundamentally empowering – it can also be used to reinforce, strengthen and deepen existing power structures.” This demonstrates that the internet is not always democratic and can be used to swing political influence. An example is ‘Kony 2012’ which spread like wild fire but was deemed as having misleading information and questionable financing sources. This video went viral after it asked people to share it online with their friends with the term ‘Slacktivism’ coined as a result; people who use social media to make them feel good about taking a stand, but actually have done very little and could actually do harm if they don’t know the facts.

While social media campaigns can be organised very quickly and gather like-minded people for a cause, it can also be used to promote misinformation and misleading accounts.

The documentary discusses how there has been a recent shift in communication to consumers with the rise of social media platforms. The power of ‘like’ (like button on Facebook, or retweets) is giving companies a better understanding of their consumers and what they like, being able to cross-promote or get celebrities to promote their products. It is also allowing companies to let consumers do their marketing for them as kids retweet or like Facebook posts to win competitions, sharing their interests with their friends. One person shares something which then two of their friends share, and the momentum multiplies with each click.

It is described as ‘reeling in the fish’; you can’t pull them in too quickly, or be too slack on the line, you need to maintain a constant tug to reel in the consumers and get them to market for you. Kids aren’t necessarily aware of the power of the ‘like’ button and how companies are manipulating them to market their products to their friends. It’s about having an openness, and not giving the impression that you have something to hide or gain – it is beneficial for the consumer and they want to share, like and retweet for their benefit not yours. These new type of consumers don’t need to be chased down with marketing campaigns – they tell the world what they like and what they think is cool to enhance their online social media profile.

The social currency of ‘likes’ means that kids who have more likes on their Facebook profile picture, YouTube video, or Twitter and Instagram posts feel more popular and they feel ’empowered’. It’s about selling yourself and your online image; you can’t stand on the sidelines of social media in this day and age you need to participate in order to be heard. When brands jump on social causes, they attract a whole new audience as they are ‘famous by association’; for example Oreo took on Gay Pride week by creating a rainbow coloured biscuit and the fans or supporters of Gay Pride then associate themselves with Oreo because they support the same cause.

Companies study the analytics of their social media endeavors by tracking data of their fans and seeing what other brands, celebrities, films, etc they and their friends like, using that to create cross-promotion campaigns. YouTubers have also realised that in order to help themselves and gain more subscribers, they need to help each other out, regularly including YouTubers who have less followers in their videos to share their audience with theirs. It is becoming big business to understand how to create social media campaigns and many companies run them on behalf of celebrities, making big money off doing so.

The question of ‘is he famous?’ when talking about YouTubers or other young social media kids is interesting as the question used to be ‘is he an actor/singer’? These days its all about how many followers, likes, shares and retweets a person can generate and not necessarily about their talent. The desire to be famous is difficult to fulfill however as there are so many people online now competing for the attention of audiences.

To bring this to our social media event; the main points I would take is having a constant engagement with the audience (‘reeling in the fish’), trying to get our consumers to become our marketers, and creating an openness and sense of trust throughout our campaign. The main question I have is how do we get consumers to be our marketers?

How does this documentary alter your understanding of the way you use social media?

The documentary points out that every time we as social media users like, share or retweet something, we are working as marketers for the companies/products we like. Most people think that sharing something you like with your friends on social media is just that, but there is actually more to it. You are promoting it to your friends on behalf of the company and if your friends like it as well they will do the same.

What connections can you make with the role of a Social Media Producer?

There are whole teams of people working on behalf of ‘talent’ and making sure that they are always visible online, tracking how their fans are responding and what other things these fans like in the hopes of cross-promotion. These social media producers set up social media networks for talent to generate as much online attention as possible. The role of social media producer is to find a way to turn consumers into marketers.

What ideas does this documentary raise in regards to the event your group is planning and the task of achieving participatory engagement?

The documentary brings up the idea of creating competitions online or rewards for people to like, retweet or share so that they in turn can become marketers on our behalf. It also makes the point of being open with consumers so that they have a sense of trust and feel involved in the event.

USER-GENERATED CONTENT Martin Lister et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.

This reading discusses how New Media has shown a shift from the audience being spectators to users who alter and create media. As a result there is now more than ever a blurred line between professional media producers to amateurs.

Lister cites the internet as being the driving force behind the shift in audience participation in media texts. As the UK Channel Four TV claimed in 2007 “the next generation of customers will be more active and creative in building content”. This is evident in the way TV shows have used forums and other social media platforms to engage their audiences and create fan culture.

Computer game fan culture has gone beyond that in giving feedback to video game creators, the creation of walkthroughs, fan art and other fan culture practices. Lister notes, “active play with text produces a tendency for player to refashion text in struggle to gain mastery over it.”

This convergence behaviour is allowing audiences to be active rather than passive spectators. Those sectors of the media industry that have embraced this change as an extension of their marketing power have received better feedback and incorporated them into their products.

In terms of organising our event, the question I have is how do we generate active users who have a “desire to be a part of it… to continue the moment of the text through constant reiteration and circulation.”? How do we create such a desire? Organising something that people will be appealed to is the key to creating a successful social media event.

Judith A. Nicholson.“Mobs in the Age of Mobile Connectivity” Fibreculture Journal 6 Mobility. (2005) Web.

This week’s reading discusses the phenomenon of flash mobs, how they originated, and how they were facilitated by mass mobile communication. The first flash mob (dubbed the ‘love rug’) occurred on the 17th of June 2003 in Manhattan when a group of 100 people converged in Macy’s furniture department asking about the same $10,000 rug. After 10 minutes, the group dispersed into the crowd. The event was organised by mass communication via text, email and blog posts.

The event was organised by Bill and the term ‘flash mob’ was then coined by Sean Savage (creator of blog cheesebikini?) who defined the new phenomenon as, “a leaderless group of like-minded people who organise using technologies such as cellphones, email and the Web”. The element of the “leaderless group” is vital to the flash mob as they are non-political and “perform a pointless act”. This issue is raised in the reading as Nicholson points out that there is somebody behind the distribution of information to organise the flash mob.

Nicholson focuses on how the shift of mobile phone use facilitated the formation of flash mobs. The mobile phone was initially used for personal or one-to-one communication (1980s and early 1990s) but then shifted to a more collective or one-to-many communication via text messaging (late 1990s and early 2000s). These messages were sent with the message of passing them on to other people and creating momentum so that the flash mob could be formed.

The large convergence of people in a public space did provide security concerns, even though the events weren’t political in nature in comparison to “smart mobs” who use mobile technology to organise protests.

In terms of our event for this semester, a flash mob is an option however it isn’t the only one either. While a flash mob isn’t political, the event we organise can be if we wish. There are so many options that it can be a bit overwhelming. The main question I have for organising our event in comparison to flash mobs is how anonymous should the organisers be in the creation of the social media event?