There’s already been hundreds of articles on how social TV will change your world in 2012. I’ve no wish to write another one (other than to say come this time next year I’m sure we’ll be thinking of television somewhat differently). However, my interest was piqued by rumours of Google and Apple to bid for the broadcasting rights for the Premier League.
Having these companies potentially compete against Sky is a fascinating future, so, in a rare piece that might appeal to both football and technology fans, I’ve considered what could be quite a fragmented future for football broadcasting over at Pitch Invasion.
Words I never thought I’d write: Monday’s episode of Made In Chelsea contained something genuinely interesting, albeit something not in the programme itself.
At the start of the programme, there was an ident pushing viewers towards checking into the programme on Get Glue. It’s the first time I’ve seen the social entertainment network pushed in conjunction with a mainstream TV show, although Channel 4 did announce a partnership back in June.
“…billed as a social network for entertainment. Think of it like Foursquare but for things you’re doing and not physical places. But it’s a similar mechanic. You can check in to TV, music and films and get badges and rewards to keep you doing it.
And just like that this whole social TV thing elevates itself to new levels. The last thing I can remember checking in to using Get Glue was the Royal Wedding. Thousands were doing the same too.”
Get Glue is certainly big in America. Logging into Get Glue last night (I’ve had an account for a while), Made In Chelsea was the 5th highest trending programme on Get Glue. It was also the only British programme in the trending list, bar Doctor Who, which was listed under BBC America, although it didn’t air during American primetime.
The American aspect is why it was a little surprising to see it on Made In Chelsea. Get Glue is very geared towards an American market, which is one of the reasons I’ve not really stuck with the service – it doesn’t feel as if it offers much for me as a UK TV viewer at the moment.
Even so, it will be interesting to see where Get Glue go with the activity check-in route. There’s the usual stickers and badges, but as we’ve seen with Foursquare, this in itself isn’t really a compelling reason to stick with the service and users need something else to stop them drifting off.
There’s also the huge backchannel that is Twitter. The microblogging service might not have set out to become a giant TV chatroom but it certainly ticks that box – just check the UK trending hashtags during primetime. Do users really want a second channel, just to check in to a programme.
That said, there are many social media projects aimed at TV bubbling under and there’s no doubt a lot of the main networks are looking at the best way to tap into this. One of my longstanding predictions is that social TV will be one of the next big advances in the social sphere. There is definitely an audience, as Twitter and Get Glue are showing, but it’s a question of finding the right service to hook people in.
Ironically, this could come from Facebook. The social media behemoth may be trying to ape aspects of Google+, but some of the predictions around F8 seem directly targeted at stealing Get Glue’s thunder. And this makes sense. People already use Facebook to talk about TV and are getting used to checking in with Facebook Places. A Get Glue-style service would be a logical and, potentially, well-used step.
It would be interesting to see what numbers Get Glue is doing in the UK, and how successful the E4 experiment is. There’s definitely a hint of the future there, at the start of Made In Chelsea. Whether that future belongs to Get Glue is another question entirely.
Monday’s Evening Standard contained a rather curious feature suggesting that Facebook was declining in popularity, while profiling the social products that could take Facebook’s place.
I say curious, because among those suggested were Instagram, the addictive fast-growing photo sharing tool, and Foursquare. Yes, Foursquare.
I suppose much depends on your definition of waning. Certainly it’s a little bit of a concern for Facebook to see 100,000 British users no longer active on the site (as opposed to quitting entirely, which Facebook makes it very hard to do), as global growth, somewhat inevitably, slows down.
But then when the company is still growing in emerging markets, has 700 million users worldwide, this number pales somewhat.
Secondly, it’s difficult to tell if this this dip is significant or the start of a long-term loss of active users, although it is the second month active users has dropped. The number of users no longer active may well decrease next month, and could be attributed to natural churn.
What the article, in a roundabout way, may do, is suggest that Facebook users use the site differently these days.
Proclaiming that Facebook is dying and a new network will take its place still feel wide of the mark.
Yes, you can point to Facebook eclipsing MySpace, but this was in the early days of social networks and before Facebook became all encompassing. It’s telling that most social sites or apps offering something that Facebook doesn’t, still offer connectivity with Facebook.
What the article does show, though, is the niche nature of the “challengers” and this is probably Facebook’s biggest weakness.
Facebook has shown us the value of browsing the web socially and, for many, has become a daily or weekly way of keeping up with friends and a social life, and for big-to-medium brands it’s a great tool. But when it comes to engaging in niche areas, the one size fits all approach that’s normally so effective for Facebook, falls down somewhat.
For small to small-to-small medium interests, websites, brands, etc, Facebook is a good news feed and traffic generator but may not necessarily be the best place to grow the community.
Certainly off Facebook you can see burgeoning communities develop, often through engagement on Twitter, as these communities look for the most effective way to get together (even if this does involve connecting to Facebook on occasions).
Facebook’s groups and fanpages are quite disparate and don’t necessarily make the easiest communities, which are often best when they grow organically.
That’s not to say it can’t, because there are some excellent groups, fan pages and communities, but if you’re really interested in something, chances are Facebook is a conduit, a means to an end, rather than that end itself.
Of the other sites profiled by the Standard as contenders for Facebook’s crown, many fulfill a service that is perhaps lacking on Facebook, or just does it better (and it’s a bit odd to see Google Places on the list).
Essentially, if we’re looking beyond Facebook – and the site will have a lifespan, although I don’t imagine it’ll collapse quite as badly or as quickly as previous competitors – we need to be thinking completely beyond what Facebook currently is.
It’s unlikely that we’ll see another social network, along the likes of Facebook and MySpace emerge. Like it or loathe it, Facebook is so firmly entrenched in our lives it would be difficult to totally shift.
But the new generation of smartphones and tablets may give us something social that we’ve not yet thought of that becomes as much a part of our day as Facebook has been. If that sounds vague, remember, 10 years ago we didn’t have any concept of Facebook or why it would become so important to us.
What’s most likely is you’ll see something new that becomes as useful as Twitter and as addictive and socially necessary as Facebook, but does something completely different, and sits neatly alongside them both, threatening their market share but also co-existing.
After all, Twitter didn’t kill or even dent Facebook. It’s unlikely Foursquare or Instagram will do either. They’re different beasts altogether, and fulfil different needs. And, ultimately, no matter how cool something is, users will go where their friends are. Because nobody likes talking alone online.
I absolutely love Stewart Lee. His Comedy Vehicle on BBC Two is one of the funniest things on TV. He’s also excellent at neatly skewing any particular area he turns his attention to. And his piece one online marketing bod trying to make the Stewart Lee brand more in-tune with social media is hilarious.
Having sat through several meetings and pitches that have gone along similar lines, I’m tempted just to whip out this video rather than spend half an hour explaining why certain social strategies won’t work.
Putting to one side the majority of the unpleasantness surrounding the Baby P case, one of the interesting aspects – from a media point of view – has been the problem of the online world and any court orders relating to reporting.
Without having delved too far into the story, it’s obvious that there’s some form of court order in play here, otherwise we’d have had Baby P’s name by now, along with the names of two of the accused [1].
The crime led to an outpouring of rage on assorted sources on the internet – blogs, forums, and Facebook groups, among other places.
Because of the way the internet is – huge swathes of information all quite easy to retrieve – it’s not exactly hard to find out the names of those involved, hence the naming and shaming that followed in the aftermath of the court case.
It doesn’t take a genius the piece together the information in the press reports, crossed referenced with a bit of smart Googling. Some of the older articles with names are in assorted caches.
Much of the ire seems to be focused on the fact that that the media hasn’t named the couple who were jailed over Baby P’s death, but as Judith Townsend at Journalism.co.uk points out, naming Baby P isn’t about any notion of justice (whatever that may be), or about the Facebook campaign. It’s about confronting the reality of an online world.
Everybody who joined the Facebook group or named them online is in contempt of court. But they’re not to know the ins and outs of contempt law. Why should they? Even journalists can be a bit fuzzy on some of the laws, unless they regularly work on court reporting or in a specific field.
Most laws relating to contempt were created to ensure a fair trial; to ensure that no matter how horrific the crime, no matter how apparent the guilt, the defendant gets a fair, unprejudiced trial.
Much of the law (I’d imagine) around the Baby P case are to protect other children involved in the case, not the accused or the guilty. The law is surprisingly clear on this.
That was fine when print and broadcast were the only ways of getting your news. The judge made the order, the journalists would sometimes contest it, but if they failed then the information didn’t get printed or broadcast. Simple.
Today, it’s never been easier to join the jots, the access cache, and to publish the names (or other relevant information online). And the orders don’t apply to non-UK websites.
As the law stands, there’s been a lot of Contempt of Court committed around the Baby P case. But who should be served with any action? Facebook? Blogger? WordPress? Google? Forum administrators? Individual bloggers? Individual posters? All of the above? None of the above?
Libel and the internet may not be perfect, but in this regard the law is streets ahead of Contempt of Court and the internet. The Baby P case has demonstrated that it’s virtually impossible to enforce Contempt laws in an online world (although I wouldn’t go as far as saying its impossible to get a fair trial).
Clearly, the laws surrounding Contempt and a fair trial need an urgent and serious overhaul. Quite what that should involve will take a far better legal brain than I, and probably about 99% of the country, have.
[1] It’s (thankfully) been a VERY long time since I’ve had to deal with child cases and courts, my immediate guess was a Section 39, although as that doesn’t apply to dead children, it might be a different court order. Section 11? I’ll have to pick up my copy of McNae’s again here as I think I need to reacquaint myself with the assorted orders to do with children and young people.
Qwitter’s launch last week seems to have thrown the Twittersphere (God, what a horrible world) temporarily, as plenty of the site’s users suddenly find themselves in a bit of an etiquette dilemma.
Basically, Qwitter’s an application that sends you a quick email whenever anybody unfollows you, along with your last Tweet. Kind of like one of those ridiculous exit interviews companies insist on putting you through. Or the kind of social media tool that neurotic recent singletons, who pour over every minute of a a failed relationship, would love.
So far, so pointless. But if there’s on thing the internet doesn’t need, it’s a rather useless service that feeds insecurities of online friendships. God alone knows we have enough problem with that offline, and Louis Gray has a pretty good analysis of Qwitter:
“What Qwitter has done with this unnecessary “service” (and I use that term loosely) is turn a very mundane, passive act that usually reflects more on a person’s available time than a follower’s actions into an act of aggression with some seemingly dubious “reason” behind it. I can see this turning ugly, as friends who discover that friends sometimes unfollow them take it personally. This means instead of realizing that on Twitter you can go back and forth with a kind of ebb and flow as needed, those with hurt feelings from being unfollowed proceed to email demanding logic, reasons, and possibly even threatening retaliation or repercussions. Qwitter feeds insecurity and neuroses by making something simple into some kind of seeming failure or insult.
…
The thing about the internet is that it has a tendency to turn aggressive in a hurry. Twitter has, until now, avoided that Internet Troll atmosphere and been a relatively happy place to connect with people online in a very low-key and self-directed way. There are a few Twitter Trolls, but not that many, thanks largely to the anonymous unfollow and anonymous block features. Qwitter changes that, and for what?”
One of the main reason to love Twitter is the free swopping of ideas and conversation between people you wouldn’t other meet, but it doesn’t matter if the following isn’t reciprocal.
I follow plenty of people on Twitter who haven’t returned the compliment, and nor would I necessarily suspect them to. Just because I find what they have to say interesting, doesn’t mean they’re going to think the same about what I say.
And vice-versa. I have a lot of random people following me, some of whom I’ve followed back, some of who seem interesting but I’m not too concerned about following them back, and some who – like some of those I follow who don’t follow me back – I’m sure are lovely people, but there’s no interest there for me.
To any of those people reading this, sorry it’s not personal! I’m sure I’ve probably lost a fair few Twitter followers because there’s a fair bit of football chat on my feed (which I am conscious of, and have considered setting up a separate feed for) and the sheer banality of some of my Tweets.
But it’s definitely not like Facebook, where there’s a definite awkwardness about having people add you who you’d rather not add, or debating whether you should add colleagues, or ex-girlfriends, and the like. Twitter’s a lot more laid back, and is all the better forward.
“I follow people on Twitter on the basis that I find what they post interesting and relevant to me. It doesn’t necessarily follow that what I say will be equally interesting and relevant to them. So, let’s imagine I’m following someone interesting, but they’re not interested in me – do they then become LESS interesting as a consequence? Should I only be listening to people to listen to me?”
Nonetheless, it feels like Twitter’s slowly moving from the childlike to the adolescent – like the acne-ridden teenager who suddenly becomes aware of the social groups and has to decide (or try) to fit in with them or not. Whether this is a good thing or not, I’m not sure.
How Twitter works best isn’t as a popularity contest or a desire to be loved, but, as Mike Butcher says:
“It quickly became apparent that this was turning into the best use of Twitter of all. Not for long, winding conversations you might have on instant messaging, but short, to the point wise-cracks between people interspersed with a little status update here, a small observation on life there. Twitter was no longer about ’status’ or ‘what are you doing’. It was about conversation, ‘what are you thinking’, ‘what are we talking about’.
The key difference is that people who say “take this conversation over into IM” don’t get it. IM can’t do what Twitter does. You can’t instant message into “the cloud”. With Twitter you can. You can shout or whisper whatever you want to say out into the ether and anyone online can hear you. And anyone following you, even if you don;t follow them, can reply – then you may well become connected.”
And Charles Arthur notes, in his typically blunt but nonetheless spot-on style, there’s only so much Twittering you can take:
“It’s simple really. In an attention economy, there’s only so much time I can listen to what colour your curtains are. Then, I’ve got to get on and earn some money. Please, no hurt feelings though. In the meantime, I’ve resolved to try to tweet useful stuff. Though the temptation to put any old rubbish in is huge, I have to admit.”
I’ve made lots of contacts and a few good friends through Twitter already, and a lot of people in my feed often stick up very interesting links (I’m probably rather bad at doing this). It’s relaxed, interesting and fun. Kind of like an online version of Central Perk, if you will.
What it doesn’t need is people suddenly starting to take it too seriously, which is what a lot of the worry and chatter around Qwitter and Twitter Karma feels like. Have a cup of tea, relax and we can Tweet about it.
***
While I’m on the topic of Twitter, a couple more examples of how the social-networking-cum-microblogging-cum-conversation site is continuing its quest for world domination rise in popularity and usefulness.
Following on from Stephen Fry, no lesser celebrity than Britney Spears has entered the Twitterverse. Or rather a mixture of of her and, possibly, the occasional Tweet from Britney herself.
It’s very different from Stephen Fry, but is a good example of how those working with a big star or somebody slightly less gadget and web-obsessed (those are good thing by the way, before Stephen Fry gets hurt) can use a Twitter feed.
There’s some nice openness and accountability – very Web 2.0, especially this Tweet – with conversation and a team (or possibly just one woman, Lauren) updating the feed reasonably regularly. It’s a good balance for a star like Britney and is a good model for any other celebrity thinking about using Twitter.
What’s more, it gives Britney devotees, of which I’m sure there are many out there (I can’t class myself as one of them, although Toxic was a great pop record) a chance to get closer to her than any celebrity magazine could offer.
Now there’s a thought. Could Twitter kill off Heat magazine?
***
The other sign that Twitter is slowly marching on came in a phone conversation today. I was in PR mode, pitching a small item to a few local papers, and rung an old university friend and colleague who worked on one of these papers.
I’d barely begun explaining what I was ringing about before he cut in to tell me that he knew what I was ringing about and had already mentioned it to his editor, all because of a couple of Tweets I’d done earlier in the week.
Now – if either as a PR or a journalist or both – if that doesn’t get you excited about the power of social media tools like Twitter for ‘traditional’ media work, then I guess nothing will.
But this post isn’t just to push his site, it’s also to pick up on one of his comments in the article:
“I do believe that social networks are the next big thing when it comes to specific interests. They are just so dynamic and take traditional outlets like magazines – often the glue for interest groups – onto the next level. The wisdom of the crowds thing really means that niche social nets have tremendous value. “
It’s a view I’d agree with as well. Now that sites like Facebook and MySpace have peaked, some areas of the media talk about them being in decline. They’re not, they’ve just plateaued as you’d expect with any kind of similar service.
But as users find the limitations of the big one-size-catches-all social networks, so they’ll turn elsewhere to networking with people with similar interests. While Facebook is great for keeping up with friends, organising parties, events and other suchlikes, one area it falls down on is the groups for like-minded users to share interests.
The groups that work well are the petition or long-standing fan groups, or the small groups either set up for, say, charity sponsorship (I’m running the marathon, please donate – that kind of thing). The rest tend to muddle around, starting off strongly before petering out, which normally works ok for petitions, but very few of them build a proper community [1]. The rest tend to be inactive personal statements.
Take my own profile: I’m a member of two Exeter City fan groups (and, until I did a mini group cull, a further three) both of which have a similar crossover in terms of membership. In addition, I’m also a ‘fan’ of Exeter City as well as Exeweb, the independent fans forum, which has a healthy social side to it. Unsurprisingly, the same faces pop up in these areas as well. I’m also on the City fans mailing list, Gnet, and subscribed to the official site. [2]
So, now I’ve got over half a dozen different Exeter City fan groups/forums on and off Facebook all of which are slightly different to the others; that is simply too many to realistically keep track off. Exeweb and Gnet are both useful outside of Facebook but they don’t allow me to post videos, blogs, or build a supporter profile, or even create a micro-group (post-match Old Timers drinkers, Birmingham Exiles, that sort of thing).
And that’s where Ben’s site, built using a simple Ning platform, comes in. Ben’s site provides all the social networking sites a niche site needs. You can just stick to the forums, or you can get really involved and video bog from Seesmic, post videos, photos, comment on blogs, or create your own group to complain about the signage in Camden, all while building up your own profile, which isn’t available on a forum, but may not be specific enough on Facebook or Myspace.
If Facebook could sort of their groups, they’d have another powerful tool in their social media behemoth. As it is, if you’re a cyclist or an Exeter City fan, you have to trawl through several groups of low to medium activity that vary in quality and don’t quite give that social media feel you were looking for. Niche networks, while unlikely to be as phenomenally successful as Facebook et al and certainly won’t overtake them, nonetheless fill a gap in the market and some even have the potential to make a bit of money. Why place a biking equipment advert on Facebook when you can target the social network that solely consist of the exact people you’re looking to target?
[1] That isn’t to say the groups can’t be a good PR tool, but you’re still reliant on getting the numbers in.
What you’ve been saying