Category Archives: digital media

March 28, 2012 · 9:30 am

Social TV

Back in the early days of the online thing (it wasn’t even really the Internet then), I was working for a major television network (OK, ABC if you need to know).  As part of my job began to involve engaging people with online content, several higher-ups expressed concern that we might be pulling people away from the broadcast.  When I moved on to another large network, that thinking persisted.  We couldn’t or shouldn’t be doing anything that would pull viewers away from their TV screens.  It wasn’t a shock to me that the “exchanging analog dollars for digital dimes” analogy came from a TV person.

American family watching TV (cropped)

American family watching TV (cropped) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fast forward 18 years.  While TV viewing is more segmented than ever, overall viewing has continued to increase, as has use of digital devices to engage viewers.  In fact, there is now evidence that the very things that were feared to be pulling viewers away from TV are, in fact, deeply engaging them in the show.  According to a new study from iModerate Research Technologies, social media can increase the time viewers spend watching TV.  58% of those consumers who share stuff on social networks related to what they are watching at least 10 times a week, report watching more live TV. The respondents in this study consistently remarked that it makes TV more fun.

What’s really interesting is that there is evidence that the social activity has viewers adding shows to their TV activities specifically because of social conversations.  Turns out that it’s free promotion, not competition, I guess.  With time spent viewing continually on the rise, social interaction seems to be adding a dimension that can compensate for the times when “there’s 57 channels and nothing on.”

iModerate also found three types of consumers who regularly engage in social TV experiences. They are:

  • “The Sports Nut”: 25-54 year-old males who use social platforms to comment on games, debate, talk trash, etc.
  • “The Extrovert”: 18-34 year-old males who have a lot of real-life and online friends.
  • “The Girlfriend”: 25-44 year-old females who primarily use social TV to discuss the dramas and reality TV shows that are important to them, which is akin to a “girls’ night out” experience, according to the study.

Another example of how sometimes our worst business fears are, in fact, our best friends!

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under digital media

Tagged as , , , , , ,

March 19, 2012 · 10:27 am

I Need To Call Dunbar – What’s His Number?

How many people do have in your Rolodex? Actually, do you even have a Rolodex or is the contact list on your phone your go-to list? How many friends on Facebook? How many LinkedIn connections? How many Twitter followers? How many folks do you know from the golf club or the gym or the playground where you take your kids who don’t fall into any of the above categories?

English: present model of Rolodex card file, c...

Image via Wikipedia

For me, the answer is a lot, as in thousands, and I don’t even consider myself to be as socially connected as many folks I know. I also do have a Rolodex – actually four of them – that’s filled with business cards of people who, for the most part are not in the other databases.  Obviously, I am not trying to maintain on-going social relationships with each and every one of them.  That’s where my buddy Dunbar comes in.

Dunbar’s number is an estimation of the number of people with whom one can maintain a stable social relationship.  This theorem was developed way back in the digital dark age of 1992, before interacting with hundreds of your high school friends, and chatting to another hundred college buddies was something you did every five or ten years, not daily.  Dunbar set the number around 150.  Other studies have set comparable numbers at 231 and 290, a fraction of what any college kid has as Facebook friends alone.

Since this is a business blog, I’ll throw out the obvious question.  If we’re trying to engage our customers in conversation as we would friends, are we limited to the Dunbar number with respect to having those sorts of relationships?  Are we kidding ourselves if we believe that an individual will use one of their 150 or even 300 relationship slots for a business entity instead of a cousin?  Or maybe there needs to be another study on how businesses fit into the social ecosystem.

I think Dunbar was right.  When I think about it, the folks to whom I’m truly connected is a small fraction of those connections I have.  I know a network like Path is trying to create that subset by limiting your connections to 150.  What’s your take on that?  Is there an opportunity for a business to create a 150 person VIP network?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Thinking Aloud

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 14, 2012 · 8:57 am

Learning The Language

A fascinating report came out at the end of last month from The Pew Internet and American Life folks. This one has to do with the impact of an “always on” connection on young people and whether that impact will be positive or negative. You can read the release and the report itself here and there was a good summary of the study done here.

These are really the key points:

…many of the young people growing up hyperconnected to each other and the mobile Web and counting on the internet as their external brain will be nimble, quick-acting multitaskers who will do well in key respects.

At the same time, these experts predicted that the impact of networked living on today’s young will drive them to thirst for instant gratification, settle for quick choices, and lack patience. A number of the survey respondents argued that it is vital to reform education and emphasize digital literacy. A notable number expressed concerns that trends are leading to a future in which most people are shallow consumers of information, and some mentioned George Orwell’s 1984 or expressed their fears of control by powerful interests in an age of entertaining distractions.

I don’t know about you, but I spend a lot of time each day online and have for years.  There is no question it has an effect on one’s brain.  I notice how my thinking has changed – at times I feel more distracted because there are always a few other things I’m doing concurrently but I also notice that when I read offline I read the “above the fold” portion of articles (usually the lede and a few paragraphs) and then scan the rest – the mind gets restless.

My thought today is this.  Digital literacy has become something that young people learn as they do their native language.  Anyone under 21 has grown up using digital devices and their brains are wired to operate a connected environment.  Ever seen a three year old play with an iPad?  Kids are digital before they can read.  They also don’t seem to focus as well (coincidence that there is an epidemic of ADD?) and can grow impatient quickly.

That statement about the digital language is several implications.  First, we don’t think about where our native language comes from (other than those of us who study philology).  We just speak it. People know how to use the digital tools but have no clue how they operate (unless they’re engineers).  Sometimes I think we confuse speaking a language with studying one and treat people who do the former as if they’ve done the latter.  Second, when one reads articles about companies enhancing broadband wand WiFi availability in one area while others are abandoning those efforts in poorer areas, it makes me think about immigrants who can’t speak the language of a new country.  If you’re not speaking digital, pretty soon you’ll be treated as a different class.

Have a look at the study and tell me what you think (if you can focus long enough!).

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under digital media

Tagged as , , ,