Where and whence the [R]evolution

Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC

University of Technology Sydney

Where and whence(!) the (R)evolution? Three key principles at the heart of social

Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC

Professor of Public Communication University of Technology Sydney



Japanese tsunami

Canterbury earthquake

Queensland floods

Social media impact



The changing mediascape 2.27 billion internet users

1.5 billion+ social network users

955 million active Facebook users (May 2012)

4 billion videos a day on YouTube

400 million blogs

340 million tweets every day via Twitter

19 million articles posted on Wikipedia in 2011



The changing mediascape

http://www.facebook.com/r.php



Web 2.0 and social media ‘Web 2.0’ coined by Tim O’Reilly in 2005 “... a set of principles and practices” (Tim O’Reilly, 2005)

“It’s an attitude, not a technology ... an underlying philosophy of relinquishing control” (Richard MacManus, 2005)

“... it’s not about the technology ... It’s about relinquishing control ... openness, trust and authenticity” (Peter Merholz, 2005)

“participatory culture” (Henry Jenkins, 2006)

“... open-source, interactive and user-controlled online applications expanding the experiences, knowledge and market power of the users as participants” (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008)

http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=5

http://www.peterme.com/archives/000560.html



First and Second Media Ages

First Media Age Second Media Age Centralised content production Decentralised content production

(e.g. user-generated content) State or capitalist control Beyond state and capitalist control;

democratising; open access; bottom-up One-way distribution of information - monologue

Two-way interactive communication – dialogue and conversations

Audiences conceived and treated as mass, passive

Audience fragmentation; networks; prosumers / produsers creating user-generated content as well as consuming

Elites dominate media content influencing social consciousness and reproducing existing social structures

Individuals use media to construct themselves as ‘subjects’, enabling social change



Understanding media Traditional definitions:

• “... the institutionalised production and generalised diffusion of symbolic goods via … transmission of information or symbolic content” (John Thompson, 1995)

• “... technological channels of distribution of messages by organisations (W. James Potter, 2009)

“ … structures of communication, where structures include both technological forms and their associated protocols, and where communication is a cultural practice (Lisa Gitelman, 2008)



Social media are a significant shift in media and communication It’s about the PRACTICES more than technologies

• Openness – to prosumers / produsers Not dominated by elites • Two-way interaction and dialogue Not monologue • Bottom-up and side-to-side Not top-down • No, or few, gatekeepers Not controlled • Authentic Not packaged • Listening Not just talking

Understanding social media







Gov 2.0 consultation trials 2009 Lack of planning – usually no clear objectives Cultural barriers – don’t want to, or reluctant, to engage Heavy moderation Inability to meet response time expectations Lack of resources to monitor and respond

• No extra human resources • Little or no social media monitoring

Lack of sense-making tools • E.g. text analysis software to review

and understand large quantities of public comment

Study of 11 federal government departments and agencies

using social media for citizen engagement



2010 Australian election Content analysis of social media use by

206 sitting federal candidates + two major political parties • Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, YouTube, blogs



2007 – 2010 Australian elections Social media 2007 2010 % change

Personal Web site 137 157 15%

Twitter 0 92 9200%

Facebook 8 146 1725%

YouTube 13 34 162%

MySpace 26 9 -65%

Blogs 15 29 93%

Flickr 0 9 900%

E-surveys 24 7 -71%

E-petitions 10 3 -70%

E-newsletter 42 78 86%

Total online sites/activities 275 564 105%



Politicians on Twitter

On Twitter45%

Not on Twitter51%

Fake Twitter accounts4%



Politicians on Twitter

439

158142 134

10491 90 90

75 72 63 62 59 5545 313131323434

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

TURNBULL

MORRISONROBB

BURKE

LUNDY

CORMANN

HAWKEELL

IS

GILLARD

HANSON-YOUNG

BIRMINGHAM

BISHOP

BRADBURY

TURNOURHALL

GARRETT

FLETCHER

BALDWIN

JOHNSON

MILNE

BRIGGS



Talking v listening

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

TURNBULL

MORRISONROBB

BURKE

LUNDY

CORMANN

HAWKEELL

IS

GILLARD

HANSON-YOUNG

BIRMINGHAM

BISHOP

BRADBURY

TURNOURHALL

GARRETT

FLETCHER

BALDWIN

JOHNSON

MILNE

BRIGGS

FollowingFollowers



Talking v listening

Politician Tweets Followers Following

1. Malcolm Turnbull 439 26,943 20,498

2. Scott Morrison 158 1,978 166

3. Andrew Robb 142 1,684 1,254

4. Tony Burke 134 3,107 550

5. Kate Lundy 104 4,352 720

9. Julia Gillard 75 43,538 27,467

92. Tony Abbott 2 19,083 20



Dialogue v broadcasting

Politician Direct messages &

responses

Broadcasts Where am I? Attack on opponents

Malcolm Turnbull 248 191 81 9

Scott Morrison 33 125 48 19

Andrew Robb 1 141 17 79

Tony Burke 65 68 9 14

Kate Lundy 28 56 22 11

Mathias Corman 22 44 5 49

Julia Gillard 12 51 20 4



UK and US election experiences “UK political leaders and organisations engaged primarily in

broadcasting their messages and not listening or engaging in dialogue”

(Gibson, Williamson & Ward, 2010)

“In the 2010 US mid-terms, 76% of tweets were one-way dissemination of information about candidates or their campaign events – “a wasted opportunity” for engagement

(Unpublished PhD thesis, 2012)



1. Survey of 200 + organisations (private and public) in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong

2. Depth interviews with social media specialists (n = 14)

August – September 2011



Participants



Social media/network % of Organisations Using

Facebook 73.7%

Twitter 54.1%

YouTube 52.7%

Corporate/organisation blog 46.8%

Podcasting (e.g. of speeches) 19%

Social media most used



57.9%

43.4%

34.4%

30.3%

30.4%

8.4%

Risks in social media

Loss of control



Social media use by organisations Few organisations allocate additional resources for responding

to social media comment, questions, etc 65.2% have no specific policy or guidelines for employees on

use of social media 46.7% either do not monitor social media at all, or monitor only

in an ad hoc way Less than one-third (32%) analyse social media content

qualitatively Most focus is on content creation and distribution (talking)



Key requirements in social media Listening – not just talking

• Listening is essential to be social, interactive and for engagement • Listening = free real-time 24/7 market, opinion and reputation research

The WORK OF LISTENING • People • Effort • Time



Key requirements in social media Listening (particularly large-scale organisational listening)

requires an ARCHITECTURE OF LISTENING • Policies • Systems (two-way interactive sites) • Tools or services to monitor • Technology such as auto-acknowledgement

and text analysis software • Human resources (moderators, editors, etc) • Articulation to management and policy



Where and whence the revolution? It’s about the practices and a cultural shift –

not the technologies • We need to change organisational culture and architecture

The shift to the social organisation is revolutionary – if operationalised in practice • Openness, interactivity, participation, collaboration • But the control paradigm is resilient

Being social requires listening as well as talking • Do the work of listening • Have an architecture of listening

Date post:	20-Aug-2015
Category:	Technology
Upload:	theprojectnz
View:	239 times
Download:	0 times