Facebook recently launched Live Stream Box, which allows webmasters to stream relevant real time status updates on their site. Users can log in with Facebook Connect and post updates that will appear on facebook (their own profile as well as friends depending on their settings) as well as the site. It means that if say, I’m watching a live stream of any event on a particular site, which has this installed, I can use this to get my friends on FB to join the conversation. Two things struck me- one, it makes a whole new way of connecting friends around their topic of interest (context), and two, (a question), is this a step aimed at bettering twitter’s common lifestream and hashtag based way of aggregating conversations? (something that Facebook lacked so far)
As all the services increase their focus on real time, I couldn’t help but think of the impact it has had on usage. Are the users on these services becoming increasingly trigger happy? TC had an article recently titled “Friendfeed, syphilis and the perfection of online mobs“, which talked about the service being the hotbed of mob justice enthusiasts. (because of its ability to aggregate conversations in one place) Its a subject that I have discussed here earlier – once in the Hasbro-Scrabulous context, and then collating 3 separate incidents. I must say that we have moved on since then- to places closer to home – the latest being The Kiruba Incident involving Cleartrip (The Kiruba version) In many cases, the mob doesn’t even pause to check the facts or look at the issue objectively/rationally, before they react. With all kinds of people out there, I wonder how long it will be before someone decides to use more than just the keyboard, and look at real justice options. (Actually it has happened before)
So, what would the effect of all this be on brands? Would they be able to keep up? Would they be able to deal with an angry mob? Real time is a reality, and it is would be more of a loss if brands decided not to use twitter. Its a different matter whether they choose to engage or are content with listening. There are quite a few tools out there which can help monitor the conversations, but what if the brands are not wired enough to respond effectively to the fires that happen? In this context, I read an interesting article on Adage, that talks about Slow Marketing. It talks about going back to the basics, and a need to focus on human, one-to-one connections.
The responsibility is on both sides. In their eagerness to cash in on the new big thing and create buzz, brands (and agencies that advise brands) set expectations that may be way beyond what the organisation behind the brand can actually meet – in this context, perhaps turn around speed, and response to all communication directed at it. From the article,
Pick your battles: The social-media feeding frenzy puts a premium on responding to all conversation. You don’t need to respond to everything. Take a step back before diving in. In some cases, not engaging is the best form of engagement.
The responsibility lies with users too. Long before there were brands on the real time platforms, there were people. And people used to help newbies learn the protocols of communicating in the network. If you were a user, you wouldn’t want to be in a place where people were only out to make fun or do harm to you. Maybe we should extend that courtesy to brands too, and allow some leeway, at least in terms of reaction time. In many cases, the person behind the handle will be just another enthusiast like you, with hardly any support from the organisation, and he would be trying to show to his bosses the value that these services can provide. All of us have favourite brands, which, if they use social media effectively, will end up being more useful to us. By making witchhunts a standard operating procedure, we might be doing more harm than we realise.
There is an interesting discussion online, that talks about company websites and their return to favour, but more on that next week 😉
until next time, see you later
When is it a debate, a multisided debate and when is it a witch hunt? At some level one could argue that the whole Anderson-Godin-Brogan-Cuban thing is nothing short of a witch hunt. Others may claim it is a debate. The difference is normative and highly subjective depending on our involvement with the issue and our distance from the agency spouting/ expressing (see choice of words?) an opinion.
if the involvement and distance clouds one’s objectivity, is that right, then? all i am asking for is some objectivity by the individual – whatever his proximity with the issue is, on the issue, before he becomes part of the mob .. if someone looks at the entire issue objectively, and then still decides that a wrong has been committed, please join the protest… my fear is that in the rush of real time, users dont pause to consider before they act..
free vs paid, i see it as a debate.. do you see a ‘witch’?
Ah well, I work in a newspaper aka traditional media and I think there is one place where they have an advantage. They bring in objectivity (at least they are supposed to). When it comes to social media, people are required to hop between the website where the person is complaining and the site where the brand has posted their response and change their mind twice, thrice or many more times after reading each post. Atleast that was my case with the Cleartrip-Kiruba incident. But I liked the way Cleartrip handled it. That said, the real question is if companies would go overboard like this, if the person had a very small digital footprint. Will his/her voice be heard? What if he/she was a nobody just an average Joe?
For my part, I know that I try to write about/ discuss issues from multiple points of view. My experience however has been that most people do not have the time to be objective. Especially in the drive-by-commenting that goes on in the blogosphere. So you are asking for a lot 🙂
I said “at some level, one could argue/ others may claim”. You are drawing your own conclusions. I like to watch a stream like this but I do not have enough data to have an informed opinion, unlike the many ‘experts’ you mention.
balu: i agree only partly on the objectivity of newspapers, too many vested interests.. but like you said, they’re supposed to… i wonder how many people took that trouble in the kiruba incident.. and that’s why i fear… and yes, i think someone asked that wuestion during that time too (is it because its kiruba that cleartrip responded).. i’d like to give cleartrip the benefit of the doubt. besides, what are RTs for? 😉
shefaly: yes, no arguments on both – your writing and drive-by commenting.. so perhaps i am asking for much…
and as always, i was merely asking if you could read something into it that i didn’t.. i mentioned experts?
I should have said “self-styled experts”.
By the way, read this if you haven’t already done so:
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/pl_print