Web 2.0 needs to move towards quality…

I was catching up on my RSS and podcasts consumption when I found myself getting very stressed.

Listening to “For Immediate Release” (Episode #341) there was a listener comment from Mitch Joel, who raised the issue of how are we supposed to manage all this information, links, networks etc.

Mitch used Twitter as an illustration:

Currently, if you look at my Twitter profile page, there are 1577 followers, while I’m following only 545 people. It used to be the same number, but I’ve become a bit of a Twitter Snob. I found it increasingly difficult to follow many different topics of conversation from people I did not know, who were talking to (or about) other people I did not know on topics that were of no immediate interest to me.

It’s a real problem. 

For most people* all this stuff is in addition to the “day job”.

The growth in smeedia content from blogs, to RSS, Twitter, social networking etc. hasn’t, in most cases, been accompanied by a growth in the tools and technologies to manage that content.

Success is often portrayed as connecting to thousands of people or having thousands of people connect to you.  But the noise generated from these connections can also make them practically value-less.

Conversation is a term often bandied about concerning Web 2.0.  But conversation isn’t about trying to hold or understand the commentary of 25,000 people.

Often volume is the most lauded feature. Don’t get me wrong, volume has its place.  But I do find that the work generated by trying to manage Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc. can be stressful and have a questionable ROI.

I think there is an ROI – which is why I continue to dip in and out, but volume isn’t everything (or the only thing).

For me, this proves we’re still at the early stages here and we’ve a long way to go.

There seems to be no end of individuals and organisations being able to ship volumes of content online, where it becomes compelling is where we get the tools to be able to mine, identify and use that data.

We’ll get there….

Footnote:

*This statement is not based on any fact or published research.  It is a rash generalisation – but it’s mine 🙂

 

New to me: Live News Cameras

Andrew Finlayson, news director at Fox News Chicago, dropped me (and I’m sure many others 🙂 ) an e-mail regarding a new project from a group of journalists in Chicago:

http://www.livenewscameras.com/

The concept is pretty simple you can watch streaming news footage from different TV stations live on the web.

You can choose to grab streaming from the US and around the world.  I jumped straight to RTÉ and watched the incoming Irish government cabinet receiving their seals of office. 

Good performance and quality (the streaming, not the cabinet 🙂 ), I also checked BBC World, Sky News UK, Sky News Australia.

Really interesting resource for tracking global news.

 image

From their About page:

LiveNewsCameras.com brings together the resources of journalists around the world and makes live streaming video easy to find and use on your computer.

As of today, there are nearly 150 channels of live streaming video here – that number is growing every day.

You can preview what is on any given stream just by leaving the site open on your desktop – many of the thumbnail images will refresh automatically every minute or so.

A well built house starts with the foundations…

I am a self confessed grumpy old man.

As a result I found myself absent mindedly nodding and grunting in agreement with Todd Defren’s post “Everything is Important“.

Ironically, people say, “Think Big Picture” when they want to coax you to forget about the details.  But the more you think about The Big Picture, the more you realize:  Everything’s Important.

Great results depend on good strategy, good understanding, creativity and great execution, but they also depend on getting the basics right.  It isn’t the most exciting element, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important – it is.

Bonus link:

Todd has also published a guide to create SEO-friendly press releases.

UK media research finds online media is a boon for PR :-)

Now I’m the first person to point out that the great thing about most research is that anyone can bend the findings to support their own opinions. 

So indulge me here.

Some of my biggest issues with the prevalent Web 2.0/Smeedia thinking are:

  • The belief that the demise of traditional media is a good thing for society – and that the media’s demise is a “fact” (it’s not)
  • The acceptance of content that’s “good enough” rather than researched, reviewed and objective
  • The online, self-styled, Web 2.0 experts, who have never practiced Public Relations in their life, but feel they are qualified to provide in-depth analysis on the impact of new online media and tools on our profession. (I’ll post more on that particular topic at a later date.)

The idea that sites like Wikipedia are a great thing – regardless of how accurate the content is – because loads of people collaborate, is flawed. I don’t like it as a citizen, as a parent, as a consumer, or as a PR practitioner. We must fight for standards ladies and gentlemen.

A report from UK media research firm Metrica [Flash alert], which included 3,000,000 articles from 700 UK media organisations over the past decade has some interesting findings.

It found that online coverage was far more likely to deliver “high message delivery” and a company spokesperson than traditional media:

Haste and paste: High message delivery and spokespeople mentions suggest the emergence of a copy and paste publishing trend in online media. Online featured the strongest message delivery of any media type with half of coverage delivering key messages, and an average of three message deliveries per article.There is also some indication of a similar trend amongst regional titles.

Now obviously as a PR guy that’s what the client is looking for. But as a citizen you want to ensure there is a strong media providing consumers with a balanced news agenda – after all if you’re getting fluffy coverage, so is your competitor.

  • According to the research for 2007, not surprisingly, the UK daily and Sunday newspapers are the least favourable outlets, while regional TV, print and radio are the most favourable.
  • The most favoured sectors are charities, trade bodies, media and leisure, and entertainment.
  • The least favoured sectors are finance, government & public sector, retail, fashion, health & beauty and transport.

I accept that no research is perfect, but it presents an interesting view and perhaps presents a case why the survival of traditional media (whether in print or online) is important to society and business.

Read more at the Metrica blog.

 

Update:

Stuart Bruce has pointed to a site I’d never seen before, the Churner Prize 🙂