A map of the Washoe Fire created by Bryce Leinan.

Society is increasingly entangled online, which means we are frequently connecting with one another in ways we would not have done in person prior to the Internet.

It’s clear that online social media have transformed societies in recent years; anyone who’s been paying attention to news coverage has noticed how online media is frequently driven by citizens.

The recent Washoe Drive Fire in Reno drove this point home for Washoe County residents. Arguably, the most popular sources of information were TV news and social networks. (A serious nod goes to KOLO/Channel 8 for its ongoing coverage running live for hours and responding directly to citizens on air from their social networks.) Courtesy of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, the #washoefire hashtag on Twitter exploded much like the fire did in real life.

While RGJ.com had coverage with quality multimedia, it was frequently late to the game in getting out information. At any given moment during the fire RGJ.com showed “Updates” and “Breaking News” that were often a half hour old or more – even though news was literally breaking by the minute. In addition, we at ThisisReno were linking to their website content before they were posting to their own social networks.

The point is that news agencies treat news and information as one and the same: proprietary. They frequently pretend as if other news outlets don’t exist. It’s a necessary part of being a competitive business enterprise.

Read the rest of this post at This Is Reno.

The verdict is in. Despite my informal experiment just over a year ago that drew roughly the same conclusions, researchers presented on Monday research results that found the following:

“Drawing a huge following on Twitter does not necessarily mean that your tweets will have much influence. It turns out that some noncelebrities with meager followings have the greatest ability to start discussions and spread ideas.”

Such a result punches holes in the hype surrounding high Twitter follower numbers; in other words, something else – newsworthiness, perhaps – generates viral retweets and influences discussions on Twitter, not the number of people following your account.

A prediction: These numbers would be much different if the same research was conducted on tweets from November 2009. The reason is because large numbers of followers potentially became even more meaningless once Twitter created lists – the ability to merely read the tweets of a much smaller subset of your followers.

This was the reason I deleted my personal Twitter account around the same time; with my current account, I have customized lists I read regularly while the main Twitter stream is more easily ignored. (Be honest, you probably do the same.)

The results of this study nevertheless continuse to support the notion that social media hype should continue to be viewed with skepticism.

Thanks to Nevada Writer for sending me the article today discussing the research results.

—
Like this post? Buy the book. Available in paperback or as an eBook. Or download the Kindle version.

It’s been a bad week for the social media gurus. First Mark Schaefer called them out collectively, and some individually, for constant backslapping and creating, inadvertently or not, a country club atmosphere where eveything is fine and cozy.

Sadly, he’s correct. And the pseudo gurus were none-too-quick to jump in with defenses of their own. My favorites were the ones who saw fit to establish their own credibility by outlining years of experience and other credentials. It was as if to say their words were somehow more credible simply because what they can verify on paper, which ignores that even the youngest and least experienced of all are sometimes the best teachers.

The dialogue below the original post is fascinating. Perhaps the larger issue raised is how social media handles popularity. If this interpretation of original research into the so-called “wisdom of crowds” is correct, essentially a small few are actually creating the most ingested content around the Web.

What that means for social media is that, as ever, despite its perceived democratic nature, social media, like life,  is a game of winners and losers. We saw this with the Twitter Vote Report. A small few controlled the content of the larger stream, “empowered” (the chosen word of the chief “data sweeper”) to admit or delete on a whim.

The consequence of the minority of so-called “thought leaders” is the natural outflow of the majority being followers. One special example came up just yesterday. Marketing guru Seth Godin publicly announced his new project, a presumed social media dialogue maker he calls “Brands in Public.”

“Brands in Public” is code for “Brands in Seth Godin’s Paws for a Price.” Essentially he believes that since Amazon or Maytag don’t have a blog that he can find, he will pirate content from said brands in order to provide a forum for others to bash, or praise, the brands. The companies then have an opportunity to pay him $400 a month to be in charge of these pages.

Godin’s own words:

“If your brand wants to be in charge of developing this page, it will cost you $400 a month. And once you take the page over, the left hand column belongs to you. You can post responses, highlight blog posts, run contests or quizzes. You can publicly have your say right next to the constant stream of information about your brand (information that’s currently all over the web–and information you can’t “take down” or censor). You can respond, lead and organize. If a crisis hits, your page will be there, ready for you to speak up. If your fans are delighted, your page makes it easy for them to chime in and speak up on sites around the web.”

The shocker of this endeavor is that it was announced around the same time that Google announced Sidewiki, which is very similar in concept. Now users with Google accounts can go to any Web page and comment on it. A Google sidebar is added to the page where you may partake in a discussion about the page.

This is exactly what Ike Pigott did – to Seth Godin, who does not allow his readers to comment on his blog. In addition to two posts about the issue, Pigott started a discussion about Godin’s post on a Sidewiki and even invited others to see how long it would take Godin to notice.

The issue is not so much that this stuff happens; such endeavors are expected. The problem is that when people of Godin’s status do it, they too frequently get the mindless cheerleader crowd chiming in (Edit: The link that was here was deleted. The writer said she was being sarcastic about supporting Godin.) with nary a thought to the questionable ethical or even legal principles of such efforts.

If the wisdom of crowds exists, social media is not the place to find it.

Michael Jackson image from TMZ

This has been a long time coming. Although people have had in their pockets the means to transmit breaking news for at least a decade, increased social networking – particularly Twitter, Facebook and Youtube—has finally garnered enough traction to spread information to the masses.

Three events just this year have set the stage for this.

1. The crash landing of the plane into the Hudson River, which was first broken visually on Twitter
2. The death of Neda in Iran, which went viral globally after being posted on Youtube, and
3. Michael Jackson’s death just hours ago, which was first reported by TMZ and spread like wildfire within minutes on Twitter.

The traditional news media, although generally doing admirably in the social media arena, cannot be in all places at once, especially with shrinking newsroom personnel. Ordinary people on the ground, and non-traditional media–such as blogs, video sites and Twitter—are inherently in better positions to document events as they happen.

The role of journalism should focus now on sorting through rumor and innuendo in breaking stories, providing context and objectivity after the fact and it should emphasize feature and more lengthy exposes like the stunning series published this week by the St. Petersburg Times.

Journalists and newsrooms should no longer put resources in trying to break news especially when there is so much competition surrounding them. A part of me hopes I am wrong about this, but a significant era of journalism is over.

[EDIT 6/25/09: Mashable has a great comment on this subject:

"Social media’s role in rapidly distributing globally-significant news like this will likely be analysed in great depth over the coming weeks. It’s notable that despite early news reports of Michael’s passing on blogs, the timing of the tributes coincided with confirmation by the LA Times – for the most critical information, it seems, we continue to trust mainstream news the most."

In addition, I should amend my original statements. Contrary to my post title, it's not that jounalists will no longer break hard news, but that their role has been changing rapidly to the point where more of the hard news is being broken by less traditional media outlets--such as blogs--and ordinary citizens. Though journalism's role is shifting, it nevertheless remains critical to society.]

[Edit 6/26/09: Bad Pitch Blog posted this statement today : "...We’re doing a point counterpoint – 250 words each on why the Michael Jackson Internet frenzy spells the death of mainstream media and the rise of TMZ and other emerging news outlets." Thought it was relevant to what I posted above yesterday as well as all of the comments below. I'm looking forward to it.]

[Edit 6/26/09: Based on the comments below, I have changed the post's title and deleted a later reference to hard news. The previous title was: "It's official: Journalists no longer break hard news." The new title I think more accurately reflects what I was originally try to convey.]

Like this post? Buy the book!

Available in paperback ($18.98) or as an eBook ($7.49).

On Monday we began the journey on how to launch an effective grassroots political campaign. You may read part I here and part II is here. Here are the final steps for a successful campaign!

5. Play the victim. If your antagonist is evil (and by default, he is), you must, by default, be good. When he does something wrong, you are automatically the better person. The best way to convey this is to consistently portray yourself as the victim. Have you ever been criticized? Ignored? Been given the stink eye on a street corner? Then you are a victim. This too is now part of your platform and your victim-hood is usually the fault of your opponents in some way, shape or form. Nothing is more powerful, and can begin you on your path of speaking to the millions who also feel victimized, than being physically and mentally damaged by things like Big Government, bureaucracy, Mexicans, the North Vietnamese and the price of gas.

6. Gain third-party endorsements. This is a time-tested principle, but what experts don’t want you to know is that the best people to tell your story are those who are just like you are and believe the same things that you do. Picking somebody who appears both knowledgeable and on your side is the best person to tell your story for you. If you cannot find a credible third-party endorsement you merely have to cite them in your materials (and quote them regularly) to show that you and that person are on the same page. If necessary, take their statements out of context when it suits your needs and makes you look better.

7. Refuse to answer questions. By now, if you have followed these steps in order, you should be generating some attention. This is good, but some key points remain, and the most important one is to not answer questions. Remember, your campaign is about what THEY are doing wrong. It has nothing to do with YOU. If pressed about what YOU believe, always defer to the issue you are concerned about –what THEY are doing wrong and how corrupt THEY are. If pressed further, saying “no comment” almost always stifles further questions and ensures that you will be viewed with a higher level of integrity. It also says to your questioners, “My knowledge is too important to share with you at this time.” People like that.

8. Shoot the messengers. If you do not like questions that you receive about your platform – or just don’t like ANY particular question – and they won’t stop asking them, remember that the person asking the question is most likely in bed with your enemy in some way, shape or form simply because they have to nerve to challenge you. These people are not on your side and should be crushed without mercy (think Stalin). At any given opportunity, be sure to let your true supporters know just how wrong it is that people such as members of the News Media Elite dare to question and criticize. By doing so, these people are showing that they, too, are part of the problem and not The Solution. The Solution, in fact, happens to be you.

9. Appear unintelligent. Finally, the last point for success in this series is the importance of appearing like the rest. Nothing gravitates the masses toward their master if he comes across as just one of the guys who just happens to have The Answer. If you speak their language, and dress like a commoner, they will like you. Remember, it was Mark Twain who said that if you consider the average intelligence of people, you will realize that 50 percent are even dumber. You must always use this to your advantage.

Good luck!

Yesterday we began the journey on how to launch an effective grassroots political campaign. You may read part I here. Here are the next two steps in the process, which will help lay the foundation for successful campaigns.

3. Build your social networking presence.

a. Start with a website. Do not get too fancy. Nothing stinks more of special interest money than a well-designed website. Build your own HTML-coded pages, even if you don’t know what that means. Alternatively, use GoDaddy’s free blog platforms as your new website when you purchase your domain name from GoDaddy (NOTE: Always use GoDaddy.). Leave the GoDaddy advertisements at the top of the page so that your constituents know just how independent, in-touch and down-to-earth you, in fact, are.
b. Enable the God named Youtube. Create some do-it-yourself, self-made videos. Be sure to use an inexpensive video camera (never use a tripod) – or, better yet, no camera at all. Take photographs from other websites and insert those into a video with you narrating your platform – which is, you’ll remember, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM – interspersed with quotes from your enemies. Be sure to take your enemy’s quotes out of context so that everyone knows just how corrupt and dysfunctional they are.
c. Take your campaign to Twitter. Because Twitter is new, that means that it is automatically better than doing time consuming things such as walking door-to-door to spread your message. Twitter has plenty of benefits like gaining 16,000 new followers just by clicking a single link. These new followers will most likely translate into 16,000 new “Yes!” votes for you come election time. Also, because Twitter limits your “tweets” to a mere 140 characters, you have less opportunity to explain yourself but can easily link to examples pointing toward corruption by your enemies.

4. Exploit wrongdoing (or invent it)*. Look carefully at your enemies. Bought by special interests? Late night, discreet trysts with transsexual prostitutes that involve latex undergarments, ball gags and artifically flavored fruit popsicles? Bushels of methamphetamine in frozen caskets buried deep beneath organic or floral gardens? Whatever it is, find it and exploit it. NOTE: Sources for political wrongdoings are best found in two places:

A) Opinion columns and pundits broadcasting on TV or radio (this is the least credible source);

B) Anonymously written blogs (this is the most credible). Because bloggers can write and post anonymously, they are more likely to tell the real truth than if they use their real names. People who use real names will often censor themselves and therefore won’t print anything truthful. This is the problem with newspapers.

Other sources for information that are not very credible but can potentially help your platform are organizations that have names containing words like “institute,” “research,” “independent” and/or “policy.” The problem with such entities is that although they can provide intelligent sounding source material, and they don’t always have to publicly disclose their funding sources, their literature, especially if they are called institutes, think tanks and the like, may be too confusing for the common man.

The main point, though, is that even if you find marginal examples of wrongdoing, you can easily make it wrong by simply saying it is wrong or by creating a reason for why it should be wrong. Always demean your opponent to make yourself look better and strengthen your campaign.

*NOTE: Finding where the enemy goes wrong may be difficult (which is why you must invent reasons on occasion), but it’s far more challenging to find out anything wrong with your own party and its members; even less so, with yourself. Obviously, since you are running for office, you must be a good person with good ideas or, at the very least, much better than what currently is running the show. Note that the same does not apply to your competition (read: the enemy with a checkered past, dull wit and various conflicts of interest). Moreover, since you are most likely the member of a political party, that means that your party, or the one most ideologically aligned to it, must inherently be more saintly than the opposing party. Evidence will support this supposition if you look for it selectively.

Part III, the final steps, will be posted tomorrow morning.

Like this post? Buy the book!

Available in paperback ($18.98) or as an eBook ($7.49).

With campaign finance reform, never-ending political corruption and the emergence of the increased power of the citizenry using online technology, this means politics is due for a grassroots-based upheaval.

If not, it should be.

With that in mind, this step-by-step guide to launching a grass roots political campaign is a surefire way to find success in the political arena. Whether you’re aiming small – city or county government – or large, like the U.S. Senate and beyond, this guide has specific points you must follow to launch your way to the top like a shooting star.

1.  Build a platform. Your platform should be about what is wrong with your competition, the people you are campaigning against in the upcoming election. NEVER, EVER base a campaign on what is right with you. Your platform is always stronger – and resonates more with the rational and sane-minded – if it is based on WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM. More on this later in the series.
2. Create a name for yourself. In the marketing world, this is called branding. So-called marketing “experts” will try to claim that everything you say and do is what constitutes your “brand.” Ignore this high-priced advice. Instead, the best way to build your brand is to simply rename yourself something related to your platform. Two examples: A. “Bloviator Bob: He Speaks To You AND For You”; or B. “Reach-around Ryan: He Knows What’s Right” (Yes, this is Ryan Jerz’ upcoming Nevada State Senate campaign brand.). IMPORTANT NOTE: Find a word to associate with your new name that begins with the same letter as your (new) first name. We like to call this alliteration, but you don’t need to know that.

Steps 3 and 4 will be posted tomorrow morning.

Perhaps it’s no coincidence

Instead, the publication wanted cash for print ads, obviously on a campaign to attempt to salvage some remnant of print journalism. Oddly, this particular media outlet might succeed for reasons I won’t go into here. And I truly wish it well.

The broader unstated dynamic, however, is that there are print models out there doing quite well, and other “news” outlets continue to see noted success (NPR, “The Daily Show,” The Onion, etc.), fulfilling the niche of information dissemination that print news is less and less able to do successfully.

Because of this, now is the time to stop bemoaning the shrinkage and loss of newspapers. Smart journalists and publishers will adapt to these changes. A part of that transformation is going to HAVE to be a change of mind. Specifically, there will need to be a reexamination of the very foundation of journalism, such as abandoning the notion that news reporting should continue to be a one-way form of communication, one that serves an inherently more noble function than, say, what occurs in blogs.

The point that journalism is more critical in light of increased information overload — whether valid or not — is a view old-guard journalists still cling to fervently, particularly the assumption that there is an inherent importance in what they do. Or did. That “importance,” in light of democratized, user-generated content, now translates into self-importance — a tough sell.

No longer can we ignore the fact that the very nature of communication is multi-faceted, occurs in countless channels and is not resting on the laurels of trained news gathering. It’s not that news journalism is dead, it’s that the model of news journalism is being decimated left and right.

Getting upset at this reality is a bit like getting mad because the wind is blowing. It’s time to create and seize new opportunities, wherever they emerge.

Although the news journalism model is dying, the rise of nonsense by the masses is exacerbated by the untrained and ordinary. Should true experts be concerned, one possible next step is to once and for all begin to define what constitutes valuable information — and the sources thereof.

* * *

Part of pursuing opportunities is diligently using new, social media. I attended the PRSA Reno Chapter’s luncheon yesterday where my friend Ryan Jerz presented on using social media. While geared toward PR professionals, Jerz’s discussion should have been mandatory for news journalists.

One critical statement he made is that successful organizations will already have critical information online and published before a news story even appears about such information. Jerz also nailed what I consider to be the most salient points regarding the use of social media:

1. Don’t start what you can’t continue. In other words, using social media just because it is there to use will have negative, unintended consequences — namely, time wasting — if you do not have a specific goal in mind and the appropriate resources to support that goal.
2. Use what works. Jerz specifically mentioned Flickr for images, Youtube for video, Facebook for social networking and Twitter for quick updates.
3. Recognize limitations. Social media is part of a mix, not THE means to an end. Also, placing a level of seriousness on it (Jerz Twitters mostly “for fun”) in many cases is likely a wishful, self-serving exercise.

While I’m no doubt paraphrasing what Jerz said, and probably putting some words in his mouth, these three points to me are the most critical in pointing out both the reasonable — and in many cases, necessary — uses of social media.

As with any new phenomenon wherein masses gather – virtually or otherwise – the porn merchants, marketers, salespeople, spammers, consultants and other charitable creatures quickly jump into the fray.

Such is the case with Twitter, the micro-blogging site that has turned the world upside down with widespread zeal and confusion. Not really. The fact is that making sense of Twitter can be a confusing chore at first. Using it effectively appears even more so.

Many, aside from the spammers, marketers, salespeople, consultants, porn merchants and other charitable creatures, seem to use Twitter to engage in conservation as well as a tool for self promotion. But taking a step back from the phenomenon means looking behind the curtain of what Twitter use shows. This is where the research-minded step in.

Here are what some experiments reveal about Twitter usage. Keep in mind, I don’t necessarily recommend any of these, as each approach has its pros and cons, which I discuss below. Doing any of these without engaging others on Twitter will result in you looking like an uber-douche.

Nevertheless, Twitter research, albeit informal and uncontrolled, reveals patterns similar  to other online marketing research. These results are fascinating to me, though not necessarily surprising:

1. Mass following will result in increased click-through rates. I have made a three- to five-fold jump in my click-through, as measured by Tr.im, by simply creating a second Twitter account and by engaging in the “I’ll follow you if you follow me” game. I also went from 0 to nearly 1,000 followers in three weeks with minimal effort.
2. By targeting who you follow and who follows you, your click-through rate will likely be more meaningful than what you see from gratuitous followers. As mentioned here, taking the approach mentioned in #1 doesn’t inherently provide more value. My initial click-through comparison was roughly the same from both accounts despite the dramatic difference in the number of followers. In other words, if you genuine in your posting, following behavior and who you are speaking to, your click-through rate will be similar as mass following and spamming. An email to me after my initial post confirmed this by saying, “Dedicated followers (versus gratuitous followers) are actually interested in your content.”
3. Duplicate posts of the same “tweet” during the day will at least double your click-through rate. One blog post was auto-posted in the morning using Twitterfeed followed by an exact duplicate manual post. This was again reposted in the early afternoon. The result: a five-fold increase in click-through to that post.
4. The time of day you post will have an effect on click-through rates. Tim Ferriss did an experiment about this. The best time to post? 12:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, based on his results.
5. How you phrase your post matters. Again, Tim Ferriss says the way your tweet is written matters as far as click-through. “If you include a question, using it to begin the Tweet will increase click-through.”

Caveats

Here are some precautions for each of the above, in order:

1 and 2. I set up my second Twitter account deliberately, in part to better manage followers and in part for measurement purposes. I still engage as I would in any other medium, but I reserve my personal account for friends and people I know personally. This to me is effective time management and use of the technology.

3. I’m on the fence about duplicate posting. It seems like spamming to me; yet, the results are undeniably different than from just a single post. What are your thoughts on this? Re-tweets from others also increase with duplicate posting. Please let me know what you think in the comments below.

4. The time you post definitely shows differences in click-through rates. I suspect the day is important too. A Saturday afternoon post will likely have less click-through than a Tuesday afternoon post. But again, if you’re doing this just to do it, you’re going to come off similar to a spammer. Twitter is conversational and as with any public relations, you are better off if you are being authentic and engaging.

5. See number four. While how you phrase your post has an effect, it is important to keep in mind the conversational nature of Twitter.

There appears to be a fundamental underestimation of the importance of research. Yet those in research fields, or those trained in research methodologies, quickly learn the difference between opinion and innuendo versus data-based knowledge.

It’s not to say one is inherently superior over the other; rather, data-driven knowledge tends to be more objective and often confronts assumed beliefs because research-based information has been tested and repeatedly observed under controlled settings.

Knowing what constitutes valuable research as opposed to experiential knowledge or consumer-driven information (e.g., what is digested from the news media and online) gives you the ability to be more inquisitive, thoughtful and critical about the information around you.

Specifically,

knowing about research will give you the ability to:

1. Accurately and systematically collect data that will answer questions
2. Analyze and attack problems; and
3. Communicate and justify both your approach to a problem and your conclusions.

Each of these skills in fact makes you more marketable, especially in the age of social media that is increasingly churning out knowledge from dubious sources.

Even among the educated, the devaluation of research-based information appears too often. A recent debate on Twitter had me feebly trying to explain what the policy recommendations are for better success in education. I’m currently completing a doctorate in educational leadership with an emphasis in higher education administration, so I have explored this issue to some degree.

Since I am also taking a class in this exact topic, I was quick to jump into the debate. Three recommendations came forward:

1. Mandatory uniforms for students in public schools
2. Closed campuses
3. More opportunities for experiential learning (erroneously referred to as “service learning”).

While I am paraphrasing, each of these was seen as panaceas for the myriad problems facing public education today. Each was thrown forward – with good intention and some anecdotal evidence – as a key to educational success. Yet, none of these appear in the policy literature [email me for links, as there are too many articles to list] that I have read – written by researchers and experts on these issues, who have dedicated lifetimes toward this problem – about increasing P-16 (pre-kindergarten through college) success.

Over and over I see people touting, especially under the guise of “new media” and “strategies,” what is workable and successful. Just last weekend at the Nevada Interactive Media Summit, two presenters cited the Twitter Vote Report as an example of community building using new media. The key ingredient left out of the equation, was, of course: to what end?

The point is not so much that these efforts and views aren’t valuable – to some extent they are, or can be – it’s that the religious-like gravity toward new technologies in the information age often translates into hyper-focused thought about trees while the forest itself is overlooked.