This post is going to be such a Debbie Downer...but reading Fatdoor Blog's , I can't help but comment on this hope that social networking will have the following applications:
"- Neighborhood social networking. While sitting at home using my PC or driving around my neighborhood with my cell phone, I can identify and connect with people on my street who share common interests. Neighbors I may not know have a choice to make their profile available to me and others in our immediate neighborhood. If an elderly neighbor needs help moving furniture, I can find out about it on our neighborhood social network and volunteer to lend a hand.
- Educational social networking. Students, teachers and the community at large participate in school-based systems that match school assignments, activities or needs with individuals inside and outside the school who can help.
- Social services networking. Using a cheap wireless device, an abused spouse or a person recently released from prison can be linked immediately to a variety of services in their area, including temporary housing, counseling and employment support. Before they even show up at a social service agency, they could access information about the best person to talk to (based on reviews from other clients) and know what services are available in real time without having to wait or be told to go somewhere else.
- Street-smart social networking. Rather than handing over a quarter, a passerby can assist a homeless person using a one-click system that identifies local services or electronically transfers money to an account at a local grocery store or restaurant."
Maybe in an ideal world. But it seems so often that people are unwilling to help out a stranger, let alone a stranger you encountered online. To join a Facebook group and maybe donate a quarter is just a bit different. Maybe I'm just a bit pessimistic today, but I think people would much rather throw money at a cause than give up time, get up and do something, especially for a stranger, in a "Pay in Forward" kind of way.
But on the large-scale, I think social networking has the capability to unite do-gooders, and communities. But to expect someone to notice that your neighbor 2 floors down is moving out, and then proceed to actually help that neighbor, who is a virtual stranger - is kind of odd to me. I think people just have apprehensions, and different comfort levels with that. But to join a cause, and table on the quad to raise awareness about the genocide in Sudan...that seems more understandable.
I think the most revolutionary thing about all these social networking sites is the potential for change in general. The wealth of information. Tapping into the brains of everyone from Joe Smoe to CEOs. Quickly exchanging thoughts and ideas through IM, etc. Maintaining old contacts and making new. By expanding networks in general, we have strength in numbers, and the potential to change.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
User Generated Content and Business
I really found the post "User Generated Content & Search" from Bruce Clay Inc. quite interesting. The post really encourages businesses to take advantage of user-generated content (UGC), and raises some really key points about consumers.
I myself am a big fan of review sites. This is really semi-connected - but I've moved into a new apartment fairly recently, and am very into decorating. So I was looking for a new comforter and some other appliances. Anyway, I noticed that stores like Target and Wal-mart, allowed customers to write reviews following the product description. What an odd concept, huh?
I'm thinking, why would a company allow negative comments if they're trying to sell a product. But I think this post - "User Generated Content & Search" - made some excellent points. If customers know what they're getting, returns decrease. Reviews actually increase sales. That makes sense, at least with online purchases. I'm often apprehensive to buy things online. Things always look so different than the picture. And the descriptions can be misleading at times.
Also, I tend to base my purchases more off of the opinions of my friends, family, and generally anyone but the salesmen. I guess its just hard to take some sales people sincerely because they just want you to buy. I dunno, maybe that's just me.
Kudos to businesses embracing UGC!
I myself am a big fan of review sites. This is really semi-connected - but I've moved into a new apartment fairly recently, and am very into decorating. So I was looking for a new comforter and some other appliances. Anyway, I noticed that stores like Target and Wal-mart, allowed customers to write reviews following the product description. What an odd concept, huh?
I'm thinking, why would a company allow negative comments if they're trying to sell a product. But I think this post - "User Generated Content & Search" - made some excellent points. If customers know what they're getting, returns decrease. Reviews actually increase sales. That makes sense, at least with online purchases. I'm often apprehensive to buy things online. Things always look so different than the picture. And the descriptions can be misleading at times.
Also, I tend to base my purchases more off of the opinions of my friends, family, and generally anyone but the salesmen. I guess its just hard to take some sales people sincerely because they just want you to buy. I dunno, maybe that's just me.
Kudos to businesses embracing UGC!
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Information Overload and a PR nightmare
The 2008 campaign in definitely revolutionary due to the use of Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, Facebook pages and YouTube.
Let's take a look at a few of the contenders:
Hillary Clinton:
Barrack Obama
Rudy
John Edwards
YouTube alone is being utilized to help political campaigns, and also to of course mock the candidates because thats just fun!
In all seriousness, I think politicians are beginning to realize the strength of the Web 2.0. Social networking sites alone have the power to put numbers behind a cause. Whether it be to Save Darfur, http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/PersonOfWeek/Story?id=3260220&page=1, or run for President. Look at Steven Colbert! His "fake" campaign that lasted a hot second was able to unite 1,000,000 Facebook users!
The Web facilitates the transfer of knowledge, and unites people, often for good causes. Blogs allow you to post your opinions, let your voice be heard. BUT, are we in information overload? I think Gerry McGovern, web content expert, makes some excellent points about some of the downsides of technology. There is an abundance of easily accessible information out there. It seems that the PR heads of these campaigns have a harder than time than ever. Every time a YouTube video surfaces, there has to be some damage control. But many of the candidates are using YouTube and blogs to get their voice heard, and campaign.
However, candidates and politicians fail to really utilize Web 2.0 when in office. There seems to be a lack of a happy medium. On one hand, as the McGovern interview points out, you have "Daniel Rosen, a candidate for Nevada's Second Congressional district, who promises to make decisions based on a Web site where constituents tell him how to vote." If politicians expect democracy to do all the work for them, why do we even elect representatives? On the other hand, as representatives, don't these people have a responsibility to the US citizens they represent, and the choices they make that impact the population?
At least businesses are starting to pick up on the effectiveness and the importance of the blog, to address the needs and concerns of the stakeholders. Businesses are recognizing that with the growth of Web 2.0, its no longer a one way street. There's less control. Though politicians are utilizing 2.0 applications to by pass the media in their campaigns, in hopes of getting elected. Though this is written in 2004, Mark Glaser explains why Senators are so slow to blog. It doesn't seem like much has really changed. If you want to raise an issue to your Senator - you write a letter, you call in the media. You yourself can blog, and if you have a popular blog, your blog can reach the media. But otherwise, you local representative or Senator probably will not be responding.
Of course it would be great for politicians to personally blog, not just people from their campaign. IT would be great if they responded to comments, and maybe used the Web 2.0 much like many companies have done. And think of themselves as service providers aiming to please their customers - the tax payers.
But on the other side, McGovern raises another excellent point, It's easy to get carried away with this Wired magazine view of "All You Need is Web 2.0," but in some ways the very technology that is meant to solve problems merely makes people more emotional—not more reasonable. We ultimately do a disservice to society by creating this euphoria about what technology can really deliver." Which I think is so true. I think we live in an age where we are overloaded with information. Web 2.0 creates even more information with user generated content. Abundance of accessible information is not the panacea. We are humans, we can only intake so much. But I do believe Web 2.0 opens a lot of doors for communication and understanding, especially in the political arena.
Let's take a look at a few of the contenders:
Hillary Clinton:
Barrack Obama
Rudy
John Edwards
YouTube alone is being utilized to help political campaigns, and also to of course mock the candidates because thats just fun!
In all seriousness, I think politicians are beginning to realize the strength of the Web 2.0. Social networking sites alone have the power to put numbers behind a cause. Whether it be to Save Darfur, http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/PersonOfWeek/Story?id=3260220&page=1, or run for President. Look at Steven Colbert! His "fake" campaign that lasted a hot second was able to unite 1,000,000 Facebook users!
The Web facilitates the transfer of knowledge, and unites people, often for good causes. Blogs allow you to post your opinions, let your voice be heard. BUT, are we in information overload? I think Gerry McGovern, web content expert, makes some excellent points about some of the downsides of technology. There is an abundance of easily accessible information out there. It seems that the PR heads of these campaigns have a harder than time than ever. Every time a YouTube video surfaces, there has to be some damage control. But many of the candidates are using YouTube and blogs to get their voice heard, and campaign.
However, candidates and politicians fail to really utilize Web 2.0 when in office. There seems to be a lack of a happy medium. On one hand, as the McGovern interview points out, you have "Daniel Rosen, a candidate for Nevada's Second Congressional district, who promises to make decisions based on a Web site where constituents tell him how to vote." If politicians expect democracy to do all the work for them, why do we even elect representatives? On the other hand, as representatives, don't these people have a responsibility to the US citizens they represent, and the choices they make that impact the population?
At least businesses are starting to pick up on the effectiveness and the importance of the blog, to address the needs and concerns of the stakeholders. Businesses are recognizing that with the growth of Web 2.0, its no longer a one way street. There's less control. Though politicians are utilizing 2.0 applications to by pass the media in their campaigns, in hopes of getting elected. Though this is written in 2004, Mark Glaser explains why Senators are so slow to blog. It doesn't seem like much has really changed. If you want to raise an issue to your Senator - you write a letter, you call in the media. You yourself can blog, and if you have a popular blog, your blog can reach the media. But otherwise, you local representative or Senator probably will not be responding.
Of course it would be great for politicians to personally blog, not just people from their campaign. IT would be great if they responded to comments, and maybe used the Web 2.0 much like many companies have done. And think of themselves as service providers aiming to please their customers - the tax payers.
But on the other side, McGovern raises another excellent point, It's easy to get carried away with this Wired magazine view of "All You Need is Web 2.0," but in some ways the very technology that is meant to solve problems merely makes people more emotional—not more reasonable. We ultimately do a disservice to society by creating this euphoria about what technology can really deliver." Which I think is so true. I think we live in an age where we are overloaded with information. Web 2.0 creates even more information with user generated content. Abundance of accessible information is not the panacea. We are humans, we can only intake so much. But I do believe Web 2.0 opens a lot of doors for communication and understanding, especially in the political arena.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)