You are here: Home / Politics & Policy

Social Media Networks Get the Word Out. Just ask ACORN.

September 18, 2009 By Dr. Pamela Rutledge 4 Comments
No Gravatar

However you come out on the politics of the “to-fund or not-to-fund” ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) issue, the radical change in House and Senate’s support for funding of the organization (or defunding as the case may be) is an excellent example of the impact of new media technologies.  Information travels across new media distribution channels out of the control of mass media, and corporate and government agendas.  In this case, according to Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner, new media sources played a significant role in forcing Washington to address the ACORN issue.

He writes:

Democrats voted 172-75 to defund ACORN; Republicans voted 173-0 to do so. This would not have occurred but for http://biggovernment.com/ the Big Government videos of ACORN employees encouraging tax evasion and prostitution. “Mainstream media” studiously ignored this big, big story, because it put Obama’s political allies in ACORN in a bad light–such an egregious bit of biased coverage that it aroused derision and contempt from Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.

Whether or not you even agree with Barone’s interpretation, you have to admit that new media is making its mark on politics.  From text messages to encourage votes to viral videos that impact funding, if you ignore the power of an interconnected network to distribute information, you do so at your peril—or embarrassment.  Just as social media networks have tremendous power to support a cause; they can equally expose a transgression.

Filed Under: Culture & Society, Politics & Policy, Social Media & Networks Tagged With: , ,

Rebranding Nigeria in Global Brains

April 10, 2009 By Dr. Pamela Rutledge 5 Comments
No Gravatar

Nigeria has recently embarked on a rebranding effort to improve their image worldwide.  Global perceptions are important in attracting the kinds of things an emerging economy needs to improve the living standards and opportunities of its people: tourism, trade, foreign direct investment and foreign financial assistance, or even to meet the UN recommended Millennium Development goals. In the words of President Yar Adua, “we must readily put in place a positive perception of Nigeria.”   It has been interesting to watch the dialogue in the AllAfrica.com news.  In a recent article Nigeria: Re-Branding – Country May Be Worse If Credibility Gap is Created the National Institute of Marketing of Nigeria (NIMN) president Aimiuwu warned that things may get worse rather than better if Nigeria doesn’t do the rebranding effort right, noting that credibility is important, if “a product is not authentic and credible then our acceptability by other comity of nations will be difficult.” He also pointed out that corruption by Nigeria ‘s leaders presented a serious challenge in the selling of Nigeria as a brand.  Corruption is always a challenge to crediblity and transparency.

Whether it’s corruption, quality of workforce, infrastructure, tourist venues, or social stability and safety, credibility is key. Nigeria faces two big challenges: 1) brands are held in the brains of the tourists and investors, not the promoters, and 2) emerging social technologies have established new standards and expectations around the globe for authenticity and transparency.

Nigeria (and any nation) needs a new approach in the current environment. A new slogan, catchy song, and opulent video footage won’t do the trick in an age where regular people can talk to regular people without official intervention or institutional intermediaries. I know, easy for me to say, but Nigeria needs to identify the areas that are most detrimental to their goals and establish specific intervention strategies. The intervention strategies must address both the substance of the problem (i.e. improve something) and then the perception in the market. Holistic rebranding efforts sound fine, but the economic manifestation of positive perceptions often hinges on a short list of perceptions. No one can change everything, so it’s good to change the things that matter most.

–
Photo source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/19/world/19nigeria-600.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2658127.stm

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/04/20/nigerias_election_may_move_a_continent/

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Filed Under: Brands & Identity, Politics & Policy, Social Media & Networks Tagged With: , ,

Politicans Have a Vested Interest in Traditional Media

March 1, 2009 By Dr. Pamela Rutledge Leave a Comment
No Gravatar

It’s hard (for me anyway) to not continually reflect on technology and emerging behaviors–and how that cycle manifests in the next technological development. I was reading Citizen Marketers today and the authors mentioned McLuhan’s remarks about the political changes resulting from the widespread introduction of television. This got me to the larger implications of the subtle changes in our culture from these amazing news tools and systems of connecting. In particular, I was thinking about how the incredible democratization of social media is threatening to seriously change the political arena. We saw how Obama effectively used social media to reach a new voting population. We also see him intensively using television communication—more frequently than any administration before him.  (That is not a value judgment, just an observation.)

It struck me that politicians of both affiliations should prefer traditional media, not just because they are ‘digital immigrants’ (thank you Marc Prensky) and don’t get it.  They should prefer mass media sources to social media and the Internet for the simple fact that they can better control their own message and other information flows that do or do not support their opinions. When applying social media in marketing, obviously you have to consider the implications of the energy generated by citizen coalitions and collective intelligence. What are politicians but marketers?  But they are marketers with the power to change the rules of the game.

This line of reasoning makes me think was that it wouldn’t be altogether surprising for legislators to decide it’s a good idea to impose controls on the Internet, new media, mobile media and social media.  Let’s get the FCC involved in the guise of protecting the public (usually our children) from “bad stuff.”  Politicians  generally launch these campaigns based on very little solid research but with a lot of whipped up fear.

We can (and should) certainly debate whose job it is to set standards and responsibility.  That is a separate issue.  Here I was more thinking along the lines that political careers are heavily invested in controlling information.  Whether or not to regulate new media technologies is an argument where politicians should recuse themselves because it is in their best self-interest to control information flows–and they know it.  Since that isn’t very likely to happen, we need to be especially vigilant when politicians get all fired up over issues that restrict freedom of speech and access to information.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Filed Under: Politics & Policy, Social Media & Networks Tagged With: , , ,

Hang in There Jack: A Case Study in Cross-Platform Digital Storytelling

February 25, 2009 By Dr. Pamela Rutledge 1 Comment
No Gravatar

Why would someone use television ads, billboards, and print to drive people to online and social media sites?

1) For the right audience, social media has lots of advantages, speed of dissemination, trust, interaction, expectations, collaboration, and emotional investment in user-generated content, engagement, curiosity, or
2) you are trying to look very hip and don’t care if it motivates action.

The ‘Hang in there Jack’ campaign is one very effective example. It successfully crosses from traditional media to the Internet (Hangintherejack.com) and social media applications such as Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter and invites a relationship with the user by encouraging user-generated content via different avenues: comments, videos, text messages, and snail mail get well cards. By doing this, it shifts the focus of the advertising message from the company (Jack in the Box, Inc.) to the user. Jack is now the vehicle for dissemination not the primary message. The hand-off from individual to individual via these various applications gives Jack’s storyline a sustainability and a patina of authenticity that could not happen with a direct ad campaign.


Demographically, this campaign will appeal most to users who are young or early adopters (Pew Internet Report : Use of Twitter is about 20% until you hit 34, then it starts dropping off steadily to 10% of 35 to 44 year olds and 5% of 45 to 54 year olds using Twitter. It’s down to 2% by the time you hit 65.)   Over half the Internet population is under 44; although there is growth across all age groups. The interesting thing about these stats combined with the emphasis on the ‘Get Well Jack’ videos is that downloading videos is growing in popularity across all ages. And I’m quite confident that Jack made these marketing decisions knowing the demographics of his customer base.

Jack has created (and I hate to use this word) buzz by successfully integrating multiple media applications and platforms.  There really is something for everyone in the mix. In the new media environment, integration is key and the envelope will  continue to be pushed.  I wonder, will we see a mobile Jack app beyond texting? Is there an integration between the physical sites to the web/social network sites, like streaming video where people in a Jack in the Box can send their message to Jack, or coupons sent to people who submit videos to the site?   If there isn’t already, there should be.

Personally, I’d like to see Jack in the Box extend this campaign and direct their customers to send messages to real people in real hospitals who could use some emotional support and cheering up. That would create tangible social capital for their brand by converting playful enthusiasm into empathy and awareness of others.

Is there potential downside? Probably not. The questions I would have asked during planning are: Will the story play out in a way that meets the expectations of the fans? Will the narrative stay fresh or will people will get bored and move on? Can we continue to drive it into new applications and create new linkages? Is the story line a little morbid (especially in this economy)? Will it alienate people who don’t want to watch someone in a hospital bed? Or those digital immigrants who them feel out of it and irrelevant with new technology?

The sales numbers and interest level will be interesting to track. I will resist any urge to mention boxes in relation to thinking, but Jack has created a good case study here.

–

Photos from http://www.hangintherejack.com
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Filed Under: Brands & Identity, Emerging Technologies, Politics & Policy, Social Media & Networks Tagged With: , , , ,

As We Close Guantanamo, Remember Milgram’s Studies

January 27, 2009 By Dr. Pamela Rutledge 2 Comments
No Gravatar

One of my favorite blogs, Cognitive Daily, posted an article reviewing the publication of a study by Berger replicating the famous experiments by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s and 1970s. Milgram’s experiments tested obedience to authority by having a study volunteer administer electric shocks to an anonymous participant under the direction of a person in a lab coat. If you aren’t familiar with the study, read the Cognitive Daily account.

Berger’s study was done about two years ago and the results were statistically insignificantly different from the original study. As recently as two years ago, people were still willing to fry the hell out of someone if a guy in a lab coat told them it was okay. As I read this article, I could not help but think about all the abuses of power we have witnessed in the last several years, from the Patriot Act to Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo. I remembered my father’s favorite cartoon from Pogo with the now infamous lines: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” This tiny bit of media has become iconic in its message. But can we hear it?

I am glad that Obama wants to close Guantanamo. I worry, however, that instead of looking at what it is that makes us willing to violate the rights and humanity of others, we will look for a handful of soliders and officers to blame. It seems these days that we are not willing to look at what is happening to us all, to the system, but want to cleanse our guilt by finding out “who’s to blame.” It is akin to superstition: we burn an effagy at the stake, so we can be cleansed. While I am not in favor of allowing bad behavior to go unpunished, I think we need to remember Milgram’s, and now Berger’s, studies.

What is the system, or the general social climate, that makes us so willing to cede our authority and our individual right to make judgments and take responsibility. This is a slippery slope for human rights as well as the housing market. What are the fundamentals of a system (not a government, a SYSTEM), that is willing to endure and even promote blind authority. The result is behavior with no consequences.

I hope that in the closing of Guantanamo, that we can spend some time thinking, not blaming, but thinking about how we got here, what it is about people who are willing to give away power and abuse power, and how to build strength in people so the challenge of responsibility is welcomed rather than eschewed. I was happy to hear references to Americans needing to take responsibility in the Inauguration speech. I do hope that means each person and not someone for us, or I fear we will all be saying again “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” –PR

—————–

Reference to study: Jerry M. Burger (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64 (1), 1-11 DOI: 10.1037/a0010932

Pogo Cartoon from Wikipedia.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Filed Under: Culture & Society, Politics & Policy Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Older Posts

Copyright © · Media Psychology Research Center · on WordPress ·