Search

尹思哲

✎ Just do it ✎

Tag

Social Media

Britons less trusting of social media than other major nations

Britons trust social media platforms less than any other major nation and favour stronger regulation of Silicon Valley’s technology companies, according to a survey of 23 countries.

Read more: http://bit.ly/2VllBbW

Meet the Man Behind Trump’s Biden Tweet

Mr. Warzel is an Opinion writer at large. Welcome to 2019, where it takes just 19 hours for a faked homemade video of Joe Biden to travel from the keyboard of a pseudonymous “memesmith” to the president of the United States.

Read more: https://nyti.ms/2IjsaDY

I bet you did not know these 2 social media platforms can make you rich

Read more: http://bit.ly/2DGvx3w

7個網媒 Dos and Don’ts

本地網媒做極唔起,西方media startups就風生水起,原因是什麼?我算是過來人,我想找到答案。

在當下,西方網媒正值百花齊放,不,它們不以「網媒」自居,他們管自己叫「media startups」或者「new media venture」,其中有3個,最值得研究參考:MediumThe InformationAxios

光計命名,本地和西方已有根本性分別:本地經營者多以「網媒」自居,西方則叫做 startups 或 venture,有顛覆和冒險之意,他們要改變和超越媒體的操作。

我認為透過比較海內外「網媒」和「Media Startups」經營實況,從他們經歷的成與敗,能夠歸納出一些 Dos 和 Don’ts供參考:

Don’ts: 不要自己創造內容

Medium創辦人Evan Williams(也是Blogger和Twitter聯合創辦人)改名最「見骨」,乾脆以「Medium」命名,開宗名義做平台,自己不創造內容,他不要建立一個盛載長文的網站,而是通過科技集結最聰明的人,賦予他們改變世界的工具。Medium精英作者群來自全球,主要使用經驗是刊登文章及撰文回應,會員可以「間書」,亦即在別人文章標註自己的心水內容,至於社交功能例如留言和「拍手」雖有,但明顯較為次要。

Don’ts: 周身刀無張利

打開本地網媒的首頁,看了看,心有戚戚然。這些報道有多少已經在Fb已看過?本地網媒有一共通點是「百貨公司」,上至天文下至港聞左至環保右至財經,都有得睇。前《華爾街日報》記者Jessica Lessin,創辦了《The Information》,標榜「只有這裡看得到」的科技業內幕深度分析,每日刊登文章不多,但精要,全年訂閱盛惠399美元,跟《華爾街日報》睇齊,Mark Zuckerberg也是忠實訂戶之一。

Don’ts: 「立足本土」不衝出國際

香港本土市場太細,是不爭的事實。受影響的是所有香港大中小企,媒體也是一門生意,自然要接受這定律。昔日香港電視業影響力足跡遍佈全球,從馬拉到美加都有忠實觀眾。當年的海外市場,亦要派員遠赴海外「征討」,今天有了互聯網可以直達受眾,若題材合適,還有借口不面向國際嗎?

Don’ts: 寫給同行而非消費者

「傳媒人只寫給傳媒人看,而不是寫給消費者,那是傳媒所面對最大的問題。」Axios 創辦人Jim VandeHei 這樣說。這家由 Politico 幾位創辦人 Jim VandeHei、Mike Allen、Roy Schwartz 所成立的新媒體,去年獲得了千萬美元創投,宗旨是為讀者創造能於手機快速獲取的專業新聞。

Dos: 免費開始 然後逐步收費

香港可能是全球最「擁抱免費內容」的城市。聽過這笑話:香港人買新手機多少錢眼不會眨,但要付1美元買WhtasApp,覺得「好憤怒」、「好唔抵」。VandeHei 分享當年經營政治媒體Politico的策略,值得參考:最初2、3年走免費路線,利用廣告收入「以戰養戰」,加強內容後,再推出收費產品擴展戰線,終達至廣告與訂閱各佔一半收入。

Dos: 大膽起用科技人

重文輕科技,是普遍本地網媒的死穴。立足香港的 lifehack.org 全公司沒有傳媒人,由為數不多的project manager,基於大數據和經驗,每日聯繫來自全球幾百名「供稿單位」、分派寫作題材。網媒若不夠資源吸納科技人,就只好使用科技公司的工具,轉換跑道,變成科技平台的「重量使用者」和「內容提供者」,那是沒有辦法中的辦法。

Dos: Cut the crap! 重質不重量

年輕一代終日浸淫於手機和社交媒體,他們嫌傳統媒體太「口水」,格式太冗長。相反,傳統媒體為取悅年輕用戶,改玩社交平台的遊戲,祭出誇張標題、性感照及讀後「感覺良好」的軟性內容。Axios的誕生要改變這現狀:以短的、精要的、點列的方式傳遞專業新聞分析。有評論以「Twitter和The Economist的結合」來形容這新體裁。

文首舉了3個外國新媒體例子,最後我再舉3個香港製造、能夠不靠投資者「科水」的,分別是 Lifehack、Hypebeast 和 Unwire.hk,共通點是只談生活不談政治,同樣值得大家參考研究。

《2017年4月8日刊於信報 — 網媒的一念天堂一念地獄》

1ad0d0d

Ryan Holmes

CEO at HootSuite

1. Be loyal. In business, loyalty can be a huge asset. I’ve learned that surrounding yourself with a loyal team is one of the key factors to success. BUT, this should all be taken with a grain of salt. Blind loyalty helps nobody. If I know that a team member is—after a certain fair amount of time—not doing the job they were hired to do, or if a business ally is starting to look out for only his best interests, I will make the tough call to part ways.

2. Trust your instincts. In business, it can be very important to trust your instincts. Faulty data, miscommunications, even people with interests that aren’t aligned with your own can get in the way of making the best decisions. It can also waste a lot of time to be constantly second-guessing things.

3. Know what you want and be super persistent about getting it. Persistence pays, and nobody knows that better than a dog. I’ve often been told that I am also very persistent when it comes to work. Indeed, I had to be when it came to finding the funding that launched my company. But many of my successful colleagues share the same trait. It’s very, very important in business to not give up. Legend has it that Walt Disney was turned down by 302 banks before he got the funding he needed to open Disneyland.

4. If you’re going to do it, do it 110%. Once you’ve decided to do something (after assessing the potential risks and benefits), why not reach for the stars with it? I’ve found that in business, if you strive to hit a place one or two steps beyond the foreseeable goal, the realm of possibilities expands. It’s how I plan things and I like to encourage my employees do the same: push past boundaries and pursue opportunities that they might have initially thought impossible or too big.

5. Unplug. Go outside and play. I answer hundreds of emails a day, but I’m also just as active in things like yoga, cycling and rock climbing. I love the outdoors. I make an effort to ensure that I’m not stuck in an office staring at a screen for hours (or days) on end. With technology penetrating our lives and jobs more than ever, it’s easy to be online and working 24-7. But it’s very important to regularly de-stress and refresh your mind and body. In fact, there’s a lot of research that suggests exercise can even improve productivity.

044846c

Dave Kerpen

CEO, Likeable Local, NY Times Best-Selling Author & Keynote Speaker

1) Focus on Your One Percenters

Lady Gaga spends much of her effort on just one percent of her audience- the highly engaged superfans who drive word of mouth. Despite her tens of millions of followers in social media, she focuses more on the die-hard fans that make up a small but valuable part of the fan base.

2) Lead with Values

Gaga differs from many of her contemporaries by standing up for issues that she cares about and for sharing her values. Leading with values is not easy – and may lead to some people, who disagree with your values, not wanting to do business with you. But when done with integrity and commitment, some customers will also go out of the way to reward you with their loyalty.

3) Build Community

She built her own social network for the die-hard fans called LittleMonsters.com. Fans set up profiles, post fan art and photos, message each other, and find links to concert dates. They even get their own LittleMonsters.com e-mail address, linking their online identity to Gaga. The pop star is on the site weekly, posting special messages to fans, “liking” and commenting on their fan art, and participating in chat discussions.

4) Give Fans a Name

In essence, a name gives your fans something further to join, to be part of, and to feel connected to. The simple act of referring to themselves by the name gives customers a strong sense of belonging.

5) Give Them Something to Talk About

You don’t need to wear a meat dress to get people talking. But you should think about what you can say and do to get your customers and fans talking about you in a positive way. Whether it’s a VIP club, surprising and delighting customers, a color that really stands out, or something else entirely, in general, the more you give people to talk about, the better.

20e9c05

Ryan Holmes:對MBA說不的3個理由

1ad0d0d

 

Ryan Holmes

CEO at HootSuite

1. MBAs no longer make sense financially. 

MBA students in 2012 paid 62 percent more in fees compared to those in 2005. A two-year MBA at an established school like Harvard or Columbia may well cost you around $150,000.

2. MBAs are no longer the best way to network.

Now, anyone can connect with people all over the world using professional social networking sites like LinkedIn. Even Facebook and Twitter are proving to be tools for connecting with valuable allies and business partners.

3. MBAs are not as exclusive or prestigious anymore.

It’s just that the degree no longer offers the same value it once did. The new business landscape—thanks in part to the Internet and social media—grants innovative, entrepreneurial and ambitious people all sorts of new opportunities, without the degrees.

 

Driven By Joy, Not By Fear

看了Wired某張Infographic,原來美國人屏幕前的休閒活動,網上遊戲用1小時,玩社交網站1.25小時,微博0.75小時,閱讀新聞2.5小時,再加上其餘看電影、電視、短片或聽音樂等活動3小時,總共每日9小時。

做完以上活動,再加工作和睡眠,時間快用光了吧?經常有朋友對我說,互聯網自從普及,科技進步,我們反而退步了,變了一個個時間窮人。

有套電影叫《In Time》,故事的主要概念,是在若干年後的世界,時間將取代金錢,成為交易媒介,人用時間買咖啡,出糧也是時間,若時間用光,即時死亡gameover。看完這套電影,我想誰在FB開發一個類似的計時器軟件,提醒大家時日無多,功德便無量。

後來,有篇在網絡瘋傳的文章讓我知道,原來讓最多人臨終時後悔的事情,是終這一生,沒有勇氣過自己真正想要的生活,一直活在別人的生活裡。

可是,回顧現實生活,我依然看見很多在浪費時間的人,包括一些認識多年的朋友。為什麼?後來我終於明白,因為害怕風險,因為恐懼,因為懶,種種的原因,大部份人選擇安於現狀。

見過些可悲的例子,生活和工作,都依靠恐懼來推動。終日害怕,害怕失去工作,害怕受人迫害,害怕得罪客戶,害怕環境改變,害怕失去。這些是不好的推動力。只會使人變得神神化化,精神緊張。

或許,我們都不是很有錢,都沒有叱吒風雲的能力,但要做個快活人,免於恐懼,還是可以的,關鍵是有勇氣踏出改變的第一步。駕馭生活的,應該是快樂,而不是恐懼。

每個人,每日只有24小時,都一樣,很公平。在相同的24小時內,誰更快樂,誰便更成功,對吧。

2012年5月12日刊於蘋果日報

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Virality Uber Alles: What the Fetishization of Social Media Is Costing Us All

source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/social-media_b_1333499.html

Going viral has gone viral. Social media have become the obsession of the media. It’s all about social now: What are the latest social tools? How can a company increase its social reach? Are reporters devoting enough time to social? Less discussed — or not at all — is the value of the thing going viral. Doesn’t matter — as long as it’s social. And viral!

The media world’s fetishization of social media has reached idol-worshipping proportions. Media conference agendas are filled with panels devoted to social media and how to use social tools to amplify coverage, but you rarely see one discussing what that coverage should actually be about. As Wadah Khanfar, former Director General of Al Jazeera, told our editors when he visited our newsroom last week, "The lack of contextualization and prioritization in the U.S. media makes it harder to know what the most important story is at any given time."

Our media culture is locked in the Perpetual Now, constantly chasing ephemeral scoops that last only seconds and that most often don’t matter in the first place, even for the brief moment that they’re "exclusive." Like, for instance, the BREAKING NEWS!!! that Donald Trump was going to endorse a candidate for president last month. This was the jumping-off point for a great piece by HuffPost’s Michael Calderone about the effect that social media have had on 2012 campaign coverage. "In a media landscape replete with Twitter, Facebook, personal blogs and myriad other digital, broadcast and print sources," he wrote, "nothing is too inconsequential to be made consequential. Political junkies, political operatives and political reporters consume most of this dross, and in this accelerated, 24/7 news cycle, a day feels like a week, with the afternoon’s agreed-upon media narrative getting turned on its head by the evening’s debate. Candidates rise, fall, and rise again, all choreographed to the rat-a-tat background noise of endless minutiae."

Of course, as Calderone notes, there’s a "real disconnect" between the media, which are obsessed with the urgency of social-media-driven news, and the American people, who are actually "more concerned about the struggling economy and their livelihoods." Or, as Dan Balz of the Washington Post put it to Calderone, "you feel you’re in this circular conversation with people who are slightly disconnected with the real America." And that’s because the concerns of struggling Americans aren’t likely to be a trending topic.

At the same time, there is plenty of media commentary about how devoid of substance much of the political debate has been so far, but little effort to actually do something about it by helping start a more substantive debate. There’s no reason why the notion of the scoop can’t be recalibrated to mean not just letting us know 10 seconds before everybody else whom Donald Trump is going to endorse but also giving us more understanding, more clarity, a brighter spotlight on solutions.

"We are in great haste," wrote Thoreau in 1854, "to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate." And today, we are in great haste to celebrate something going viral, but seem completely unconcerned whether the thing that went viral added one iota of anything good — including even just simple amusement — to our lives. The truth is that sometimes it does, but very often it doesn’t. It’s not even a very complex question; the problem is that we seldom bother to ask the question before we dutifully hop on the algorithmic viral wave. We’re treating virality as a good in and of itself, moving forward for the sake of moving. "Hey," someone might ask, "where are you going?" "I don’t know — but as long as I’m moving it doesn’t matter!" Not a very effective way to end up in a better place.

Of course, I’m writing this sitting in the HuffPost newsroom, where we are as aggressive as any media outlet in using social media. Indeed, we were recently recognized as one of the three "most viral news sources" on Facebook and Twitter. But maybe because we’ve been doing "social" well for a while, I hope we’re more likely to see it for what it is — a tool — than some in traditional media who fetishize it as a new magical feat they haven’t yet mastered.

How many times is the discussion of a topic justified by the fact that it’s "trending on Twitter"? And is it really meaningful that "sentiment on Twitter is breaking 80 to 1 against such-and-such"? And is something important to talk about because it has 3,000 Likes on Facebook?

In fact, trending on Twitter may not mean much of anything at all, except what dominates the conversation at that particular moment (10,000 tweets per second in the final three minutes of the Super Bowl, for example, or 10,901 tweets per second during Adele’s Record of the Year win at the Grammys). But as Twitter’s Rachael Horwitz wrote to me in an email, "Twitter’s algorithm favors novelty over popularity."

Indeed, to further complicate the science of trending topics, a subject can be too popular to trend: In December of 2010, just after Julian Assange began releasing U.S. diplomatic cables, about 1 percent of all tweets (at the time, that would have been roughly a million tweets a day) were about WikiLeaks, and yet #wikileaks trended so rarely that people accused Twitter of censorship. In fact, the opposite was true: there were too many tweets about WikiLeaks, and they were so constant that Twitter started treating WikiLeaks as the new normal.

The bottom line is that you can use Twitter to talk obsessively about Justin Bieber (in 2010, an astonishing 3 percent of tweets worldwide were about the pint-size pop star) or you can use Twitter to bring to life Biz Stone’s aspirational statement that, "Twitter is not a triumph of tech; it’s a triumph of humanity." That’s what sites like Kickstarter and DonorsChoose are doing, leveraging the power of social media to crowdfund creative projects, or to help teachers fund many urgent classroom needs.

So, the question remains: as we adopt new and better ways to help people communicate, can we keep asking what is really being communicated? And what’s the opportunity cost of what is not being communicated while we’re all locked in the perpetual present chasing whatever is trending?

The fever isn’t limited to the media. As Carolyn Everson, Facebook’s VP of global marketing, put it, marketers commonly tell their agencies and teams, "I need a little Facebook. I’ll come up with a big idea, I’ll do the typical 30 second spot, the print campaign, and by the way, give me a little Facebook."

These days every company is hungry to embrace social media and virality, even if they’re not exactly sure what that means, and even if they’re not prepared to really deal with it once they’ve achieved it. For example, as Grist’s Jess Zimmerman reported in January, McDonald’s tried a social marketing campaign recently that backfired badly. The company asked people to use the hashtag "McDStories" and tweet about their experiences with McDonald’s. The results weren’t pretty. One #McDStory was a claim that McNuggets "contain dimethylpolysiloxane, an anti-foaming agent also used in caulks and sealants and Silly Putty;" another mentioned a live worm in a Filet-O-Fish.

"See, no matter what some social media guru told you," concludes Zimmerman, "Twitter is not just a marketing amplification engine. It’s a bunch of people, sharing things they think are worth sharing. Trying to start a McDonald’s appreciation hashtag is like the smelly, creepy kid running a write-in campaign for Prom King — not gonna work, and probably gonna backfire. People don’t start liking you just because you suggest a way to express their admiration."

Or as Sheryl Sandberg put it, "What it means to be social is if you want to talk to me, you have to listen to me as well." A lot of brands want to be social, but they don’t want to listen, because much of what they’re hearing is quite simply not to their liking, and, just as in relationships in the offline world, engaging with your customers or your readers in a transparent and authentic way is not all sweetness and light. So simply issuing a statement saying you’re committed to listening isn’t the same thing as listening. And as in any human relationship, there is a dark side to intimacy.

So, the road to social media hell is paved with well-intended hashtags — as well as disingenuous or inauthentic ones.

Late last year, Qantas airlines launched a social media campaign asking people to tweet their thoughts about luxury air travel using the hashtag #quantasluxury. What they got instead was a lot of tweets about the labor fight the airline was having with its workers. As Alexandra Samuel wrote about the incident in the Harvard Business Review, "If all you’ve got is a social media marketing strategy, then you don’t have a social media strategy at all."

Social media are a means, not an end. And going viral isn’t "mission accomplished," regardless of what it was that went viral. As James DeJulio put it, "It seems that overnight, the viral video has become some sort of badge of honor within advertising communities. CMOs without them are beginning to feel like the only kid in second grade without a Cabbage Patch." Just google "how to make a video go viral" and you’ll find a trove of tips on how to hit the sweet spot, along with reams of analysis on why this video lit up the Internet and why that one was dead on arrival.

Last week, NASCAR driver Brad Keselowski ascended to social media fame by tweeting from his stopped race car during a pause in the action at the Daytona 500. His photo of a fire on the track was retweeted more than 5,000 times; with a few taps of his iPhone, Keselowski tripled his Twitter followers. Even for non-NASCAR fans, the appeal was easy to understand: celebrity tweeter, unusual circumstances, the whiff of danger. The New York Times called it "just the latest episode in social media’s evolution."

But what are we evolving toward? And what is the price we are paying by feeding the virality beast?

Fetishizing "social" has become a major distraction, and we’re clearly a country that loves to be distracted. Our job in the media is to use all the social tools at our disposal to tell the stories that matter — as well as the stories that entertain — and to keep reminding ourselves that the tools are not the story. When we become too obsessed with our closed, circular Twitter or Facebook ecosystem, we can easily forget that poverty is on the rise, or that downward mobility is trending upward, or that over 5 million people have been without a job for half a year or more, or that millions of homeowners are still underwater. And just as easily, we can ignore all the great instances of compassion, ingenuity, and innovation that are changing lives and communities.

"The campaigns can sort of distract reporters throughout the day by helping fuel these mini-stories, mini-controversies," said the New York Times’ Jeff Zeleny. Mini-stories. Mini-controversies. Just the sort of Twitter-friendly morsels that many in the media think are best-suited to the new social media landscape. But that conflates the form with the substance, and we miss the desperate need for more than snackable, here-now-gone-in-15-minutes scoops. So we end up with a system in which the media are being willingly led by the campaigns away from the issues that matter and the solutions that will actually make a difference in people’s lives.

Someday, historians will likely look back at this virality-uber-alles age and wonder what we were trying to accomplish. The answer will be: not a whole hell of a lot. Our times demand a much better response. All these new social tools can help us bear witness more powerfully or they can help us be distracted more obsessively

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑