MIT Technology Review has published an article by Jennifer Neda John, a research assistant at the Stanford Internet Observatory, whose findings point out that the Zs tend to prioritize identity over objectivity when it comes to the content they access on social media. When they are offline, they are much more likely to rely on sources that have established real credibility based on relationships and experience. But when they are online, they relate more strongly to those who post who seem to be a lot like them. In a word, “influencers.”
Offline, when deciding whose claims should be trusted and whose should be ignored or doubted, teenagers are likely to draw on the context that their communities provide. Social connections and individual reputations developed through years of shared experiences inform which family members, friends, and classmates teenagers rely on to form their opinions and receive updates on events. In this setting, a community’s collective knowledge about whom to trust on which topics contributes more to credibility than the identity of the person making a claim, even if that identity is one the young person shares.
Social media, however, promotes credibility based on identity rather than community. And when trust is built on identity, authority shifts to influencers. Thanks to looking and sounding like their followers, influencers become trusted messengers on topics in which they have no expertise.
Today I read an article in Time magazine about how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under the thumb of that reincarnation of Adolph Hitler, Xi Jinping, are using high-tech tools to completely obliterate entire cultures of people who reside within the country’s borders. Here’s the link:
It’s nauseating. George Orwell’s 1984 has clearly served as a starter manual for Xi and the CCP. I say “starter” because the PRC, taking advantage of the latest in high-tech innovations, has clearly revised and updated that manual, achieving a level of fascist, totalitarian political and social control that is hard to imagine.
To all the captains of American industry and pro sports teams who continue to dodge the issues involved here, I say it’s time you grew a pair. Get out of China. Now.
China can take its domestic market and lower labor costs and put ’em where the sun don’t shine. Engagement with such a regime is the height of hypocrisy and shareholders need to wake up and smell the rotting carrion. The rest of the world should boycott the country’s goods and services and sever all partnerships.
Shareholders of American companies with entangling relationships with PRC-headquartered firms need to short their shares and find less fetid fields for their investments. It’s past time.
Xi will never admit it, but he needs us a lot more than we need him and his insane, ego-driven destruction of what was once a proud country on its way to integration with the world that surrounds it.
shows how usage varies among three countries: the USA, the UK, and South Korea. I personally wonder if the very great difference in Korea might not have something to do with the fact that TikTok is owned by a company (ByteDance) headquartered in the People’s Republic of China, the country that tried its best to impose North Korea and communism over the entire peninsula back in the 1950s.
The report also notes that TikTok collects a LOT of user data and since it’s not bound by U.S. laws, it does not bother to limit what it collects. The fact their collections would violate numerous American state and federal laws about privacy does not seem to concern them. It needs to be said that this only applies to those who create videos and upload to the platform, not to those who use it only for viewing. Viewers do not need to register, so they do not provide any personal information.
You may recall the Trump administration accused the company of being an information conduit to the Chinese Communist Party, which TikTok’s ownership disputes, noting that its servers are in Singapore and the USA. Both Microsoft and Oracle drafted offers to purchase TikTok’s U.S. operations. As of the fall of 2020, Microsoft’s bid was declined and Oracle was still in the hunt, but I see nothing more recent than that.
In the meantime, parents of younger social media users may want to heed the advice given by Karen North, a professor of social media at the University of Southern California, as reported in USA Today
I’ve written an article with the above title that’s different from the things I usually post here. It’s not about the media or marketing, it’s about what’s going on these days. Rather than being about someone else’s work that I found and thought would be of interest, this is my own article, for better or worse.
I published it on Medium. Here is the link and I would be interested in your reaction.
Here is a link to a YouTube video featuring a group of Chinese students who sing a very heart-warming song as they reach out to offer their support for colleagues in India. The song itself is, I think, quite lovely. This is a fine example of the good that digital media can do.
Yes, voice. The things you say and how you say them. In the ongoing push to identify ever more accurate ways to classify consumers and exploit their needs and wants, the latest tool being designed to monitor us all is the use of AI and hardware to home in on your real-time emotional state. It’s the application of psychographic market segmentation to drill down to an audience of one, you or me, and do it “as we speak.”
How will this be done?
While the algorithm does the classification, it’s the hardware that will empower it.
You might wonder what kind of hardware. How about your phone? Or all those wonderful IOT devices in your home that lend so much convenience to your workaday self, freeing you up to spend more FOMO time on social media platforms, so you can but, buy, buy more and more and more.
Anything we use that is activated by voice can be heard by a machine you know nothing about that analyzes your tone, your inflection, your word choices, and builds an instantaneous profile ready to use psychological tricks of the trade to steer you in the marketer’s desired direction.
This article goes into the details and I highly recommend it.
David Ogilvy, the Advertising Hall of Fame member and eponymous founder of the agency that bears his name, Ogilvy & Mather, was an exponent of long copy in advertising. He wrote two outstanding books on advertising, Confessions of an Advertising Man, in 1963, and Ogilvy on Advertising in 1985. He was the creative genius whose work made Rolls Royce even more famous than it already was and turned Hathaway Shirts into an aspirational brand, among other accomplishments. In Confessions he famously said that the art director should be the creative lead because of the power of great imagery (a picture is worth at least 1,000 words, right?). But with on Advertising he changed his view, saying that the copywriter needed to lead because the copywriter is the one with the ability to fully articulate the message.
By the time he retired to his (quite modest, he said) chateau in France, advertising creatives seemed to have turned away from long copy to focus on striking imagery with short or even no copy at all. I recall one great two-page spread for Nikon cameras that had no copy at all, just the Nikon logo. And I thought then and still think now that it was a great ad.
I would argue that long copy or short, the ad needs to create a desire to engage. Ogilvy liked to say that for a prospect who was actually ready to buy in a particular category, say cars, the prospect could not get enough information. The more, the better. He created a full-page ad for Rolls with very long copy and a headline that said that at 60 miles per hour, the loudest thing you would hear on the inside of the car was the ticking of the clock in the dashboard. Even the headline was long!
Perhaps not all big tech is bad for art after all, or at least for musicians! This news has been posted in an article from the Wall Street Journal. I don’t know if you will be able to access the article from my blog site, since the WSJ has a pay wall. But since the Journal does allow their items to be shared via Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, you can go to my page on any of those three for an accessible link to the story. I had recently posted a link to a story that was all about how big tech is ruining the art world. That may still be true in the visual arts but it seems that music, at least, has been given a reprieve by Apple.
“About three-in-ten U.S. adults say they are ‘almost constantly’ online,” is the headline for a Pew Research report about online usage released on March 26th. The article includes an eye-opening demographic breakdown for people being online according to age, gender, education, ethnicity, geographic location, and income.
Forty-eight percent of people in the 18 to 29 age cohort are online “almost constantly,” followed by those aged 30 to 49 at 42%. A mere 8% of those 65 or older are constant users.
College grads come in at 42%, while high school or less are at 23%.
These findings are eye-opening and no doubt useful for a variety of business-related pursuits, such as marketing strategies. After all, if you want to reach your target audience, it helps to know what media they use, so that you can maintain a presence there. Purveyors of senior-related products and services probably should not be looking to social media, while marketers of Gen Z goods and services certainly should!
That’s a question posed by William Deresiewicz in his book, The Death of the Artist. He recently contributed an excerpt from the book to MIT’s Technology Review. There’s a link below but if you are not a subscriber, you will not be able to read the whole piece. Deresiewicz makes a very good case that art may no longer be sustainable in a world that, thanks to the Internet and all its myriad platforms, now makes art available for free or for next to nothing.
Take music for example. We all recall the major problems that arose with totally unregulated and unmonitored file sharing. Musicians and song writers were making art that people wanted but they wanted it for free. Now, those same artists are getting royalties from Pandora and the like but for 95% or more of them, it’s nowhere near enough to provide an even halfway decent income.
And visual art? It’s everywhere. Artists are finding audiences but no money. Stock photography royalties are a joke. And everything from logos to illustrations is being expropriated without payment or even credit given to the creators.
Deresiewicz makes the point that art has been demonetized. Art is becoming unsustainable, especially for newcomers and those who are trying new ways of seeing and sounding. Extrapolating from his excerpt, it seems reasonable for me to say that art may be stagnating, leaving us with a situation where an ever-decreasing number of sources are being followed and so many artists are abandoning their muse.
And the question arises, what happens to culture as art fades away?