Is Mainstream Media Capitalizing on Citizen Journalism?

I blog about it all the time: citizen journalism is on the rise. Meanwhile, newspapers are folding at an ever-increasing rate.

What's the natural next step as these two trends become more and more prevalent? Online news outlets depending on citizen--e.g. unpaid--journalists to provide content while they continue to phase-out real--e.g. paid--journalists. Not only does this make sense financially, but since user-generated content is what readers want anyway, advertisers are becoming increasingly interested in going where the unpaid--and popular--content is.

A concrete step towards this new model will be rolled out this coming Monday--in the form of a blogroll, that is. The New York Times is launching a local blog network that will feature content from the paper’s editors but also rely on user-generated content from locals readers. Jim Schachter, editor for digital initiatives at The New York Times, explained:

We expect to sell ads to local merchants using our telesales and self-serve ad solution. Our two pilot sites are staffed with full-time NYTimes reporters. That’s not cheap. Obviously, it’s also not a sustainable model.

What a dream scenario for newspapers and online news outlets, right? Not only do they not have to pay reporters anymore, but ad revenue will increase.

My question is this: is relying on citizen journalists a sustainable model? As it stands now, playing on citizen journalists' vanity is basically the model: people want to write and have people read it, and they want to be able to say that their stuff is featured on mainstream, high-traffic websites.

But how long will people be willing to put the time and effort into creating high-quality blog or video posts if they're not being compensated? At what point do citizen journalists basically become freelancers working for free? If I had to guess, I'd say right about the time when statistics start to show that websites are generating a bunch of revenue as a result of the content users are providing for free.

Twitter: What Is It Good For?

Lazy Friday: I'm just linking to a guest post about Twitter that I wrote for Jill Kurtz's blog earlier this week.

Have a great weekend!

Live Tweeting Lawmakers?

On the heels of ASAE's Great Ideas conference and the twitter about live tweeting during sessions, there's an article in today's Washington Post addressing the same thing: A Tale of 140 Characters, Plus the Ones in Congress--excellent headline, btw.

The article talks about lawmakers tweeting through Obama's speech to the joint session of congress. Tweets like "I did big wooohoo for Justice Ginsberg" and "Capt Sully is here -- awesome!" The author, Dana Milbank, likens the tweeting lawmakers to high school kids sending text messages from math class. He poses the question

"Should these guys maybe spend time fixing the country and leave the Twittering to somebody else?"

Are you kidding me? The article lists the number of followers for each of the three lawmakers featured as of the date of publication (today). As of the time I'm writing this post (7:30 pm), each of them have gained hundreds of new followers just since this morning. Look at Claire McCaskill; she has over 10,000 followers. You think she's going to walk away from that attention anytime soon? Hell, I feel like a rock star having 220 followers; I can't imagine what it would be like to have 10,000.

Twitter has made it so anyone can bask in a spotlight that would otherwise be unavailable. Pre-Twitter, it would never have occurred to anyone to ask "what are you doing?" on an ongoing 24/7 basis--nobody would have cared. Now anyone at all can have his or her own personal ticker tape, to which their fans--I mean followers--are riveted.

There's no doubt about it: Twitter is inherently narcissistic. Why would you bother sharing what you're doing with the world if you didn't think your every move was fascinating? If you're a private person or don't think what you do would be of interest to anyone, chances are you're not on Twitter. Or if you are, you're merely a lurker using it as a convenient RSS feed.

So who can blame these politicos for wanting to stand out from the crowd and be seen as more than serious guys/gals soberly flanking the President? What is politics other than one big popularity contest? And who are the popular kids? The witty ones, the smart ones, the glamorous ones...the ones who can spin any given moment's happenings into a 140-character piece of prose, for instance.

So back to the question about when these people are going to hand over the mike and get back to work: I say the answer is no time soon. It would be like asking a stand-up comedian fill a room then walk off the stage.

Bootleg* Volunteerism

(*bootleg in the urban dictionary sense; e.g. lame or lazy)

Maddie Grant tagged me to answer the question posed by Peggy Hoffman's volunteerism meme: "How can we create volunteer jobs that don’t require being on a committee, a long-term commitment or gobs of time? So, share five short-term, ad-hoc volunteer jobs you’d love to have."

The word that stands out to me in this question is "commitment." I am notoriously bad about commitment...strictly in the volunteer sense, that is! ;) I am horrible at PTA and feel pinned down by the mere thought of having my name on a committee roster. However, like Ben Affleck in He's Just Not That Into You, it's the idea of commitment that freaks me out, not the actual reality if it. **Warning: SPOILER!!** As soon as Jennifer Anniston tells him she's ok with never getting married, he proposes.

Ok, sorry for the sidebar...my point is I love to help and be involved, but I need to know it's ok that sometimes I won't be able to participate and I won't be disappointing anyone if I have to disappear for a while.

Therefore "short-term" and "ad-hoc" are the perfect kind of volunteer jobs for me. Five examples?

1. Question-answerer. I can tear through vast amounts of information like nobody's business, and love to learn new things. Do I want to organize an entire event or track RSVPs? No. Would I be willing to spend hours gathering information for the organizers? Yes.


2. WOM information disseminator. I have a big mouth--both online and in real life. Need to spread information about something--plug an event, spread the word about a cause, etc? I will tweet it, blog about it, email my friends about it and ask them to spread the word about it, tell my kids to tell their friends to tell their parents about it, etc. Ask me to pass something on or get the word out about something and I'll glady do it.


3. Brainstormer. Need to think of a tagline or a a theme? I love to be asked my opinion and offer suggestions.


4. Blogger. I love to write and am always flattered when someone wants me to guest blog. I'm really excited to have been picked to blog from/about Great Ideas.


5. Matchmaker. I am a firm believer in it's all about who you know and doing things the easy way. If I can help someone via an inside track of some sort--whether it be hooking a job-hunter up with a potential employer or just helping someone circumvent a ton of red tape to get to a person they need to reach for whatever reason, I'm happy to do it. If I don't personally know someone who can help you, I can at least try to find someone who can facilitate that relationship. An example of this might be volunteering to hook students up with mentors, or steering someone to the right person to find out about an internship, job or scholarship.

Ok, so now I have to tag 5 more bloggers (apologies in advance if you've already been tagged):

1. Lynn Morton of SNAP fame.


2. Chris Condayan (he doesn't have a blog, but Twitter is a micro-blog, right? Maybe this will inspire him to start a blog ;)


3. Kemetia Foley Fellow Mary Washington College student from back in the day, I recently "re-met" her on Facebook and just now discovered her blog.


4. Penelope Trunk Granted, she is not an association person and also doesn't do memes, but I love her and bet she'd have some great ideas about this. She's already written many posts about volunteering so maybe she'll be inspired to write another.


5. Cassie Soofi Again, not an association staffer, but she is an ASHA member--and also my sister. Not to mention her blog is called Cute and Evil--best blog name possibly ever.

The Power of Social Media: Are Companies Overreacting?

Yesterday the world seemed to be a-buzz—and a-twitter—with reactions to Facebook’s announcement that they were changing their Terms of Service (TOS). I’m not just talking cyber world either; I’m talking the Washington Post, WTOP radio, NBC TV news—“real” news outlets.

The first thing that came to my mind when I read about the TOS changes was “so what?” I’m not a risk-averse person and as far as I’m concerned, if Facebook wants to find a way to use one of my status updates or Lil’ Green Patch requests at any point in the future they can have at it. The second thought I had was wow, Facebook has really gone mainstream if WTOP is featuring the story every 10 minutes.

Then, just as my coworker and I were talking about it this morning, he read online that Facebook has recanted the changes to the TOS. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, announced this decision early today on Facebook’s blog, and told users that they will play an integral role in developing new terms that “reflect the principles and values of the people using the service.”

This reversal brought to mind a handful of recent similar situations in which a company puts something out there then takes it back after the public slams it. It happened when a Motrin campaign ignited the wrath of millions of parents who were offended by an ad that basically poked fun at moms who carry their babies in body slings. After a public outcry on blogs, Twitter and Facebook, Johnson & Johnson pulled the ad both online and in print and published an apology on their website. It happened when Molson Coors Brewing Company pulled a photo contest on Facebook after a flurry of negative comments that the contest encouraged irresponsible and underage drinking. And it happened when Site Meter, a service that provides website tracking tools, launched a new version and within a day rolled back to the previous version after users (including me) went ballistic about the new version. (note: even though the post from the Site Meter blog is dated 2006, it actually was written in September 2008; I'm not sure why the date is wrong.)

Being in the association frame of mind I’m in right now since I’m leaving for ASAE’s Great Ideas conference in a few days and will be live blogging the event, I couldn’t help but think back to a post on Acronym that posed the question Do associations overreact to criticism? At that time, I commented that associations shouldn’t put too much stock into negative blog comments and shouldn’t rush to action as a result of member feedback. However, after this Facebook reversal and the others I just cited, should I be rethinking my stance about associations reacting to criticism? If the ways of the word are evolving towards a “power to the people” dynamic, does that mean that the same will be true for associations?

Guest Blogging From ASAE's Great Ideas Conference

This time next week I'll be in Miami for ASAE's Great Ideas conference. Please let there not be some freakish cold streak in Miami--I need some sun and heat!

I'm psyched not only about the Miami weather part; I'll also be presenting at the meeting and guest blogging on ASAE's blog, Acronym.

Hopefully they have wireless by the pool so I can blog and tan at the same time.

Enterprise Twitter: Who Would Pay?

I love it when I can use the word "atwitter" in a blog post. So it's my lucky day because my inbox and twitterstream are both atwitter about Twitter's rumored new business model: charging companies for commercial use. Simple enough, right? I mean, if Twitter is now a mainstay of corporate communications--garnering all kinds of notoriety for companies like Comcast and Dell--shouldn't it cost them something?

But wait a second--same story, different headline this time: "Twitter to begin charging brands for commercial use." The operative word here being "brands."

Sure, just semantics--but it does make me wonder what "companies" Twitter's new business model would encompass. Sure Dell made a million dollars (allegedly) and who knows how much companies like Comcast might potentially make as a result of their turn-around in customer service resulting from Comcastcares. But what about nonprofits or associations using Twitter? Or freelancers? Or even the White House?

Where will Twitter draw the line? And will this business model work for them or will they all agreee with Bob Pearson, VP of communities and conversations at Dell:

“If it becomes complicated and costly, our instinct would be to move elsewhere.”

Last question--I promise--where exactly would they move and still get the same results Twitter is delivering?

Why The "Only Young People Use Social Media" Excuse Won't Work Anymore

If you read this blog you know one thing I blog about regularly is the fact that more and more "old" people are using social media every day.

Here are two more logs to throw on that fire:

• The biggest increase in online participation since 2005 is in the 70+ age group



• The fastest growing demographic on Facebook is women 55+

Which Is It: Quantity Or Quality?

Social media goddess, Charlene Li, recently made some social media predictions for 2009. Here's one of them:

Exclusivity trumps accessibility. Having thousands of friends becomes "so 2008" and defriending becomes the hot new trend, driven by overwhelming rivers of newsfeeds. The movement is rooted in a desire to have quality, not quantity, as people cocoon in the face of the economic crisis. Facebook apps will emulate Twitter Grader, allowing you to prioritize your friends based on their overall social ranking -- and prune safely to ensure the highest quality friends.

So if my Twitter grade is 95 out of 100, do I count as a "highest quality friend"?

As marketers continue to try to figure out ways to monetize the huge success of social media, the success of their campaigns rests on people having as many friends/followers as possible. Not only that, but isn't the whole metric of social media authority and success gauged by number of followers/subscribers/friends? Then of course there's the obvious question: what is the definition of "friend" in the world of social media? Li suggests prioritizing your friends based on their overall social ranking. Does this mean that society is supposed to become all about "who you know" and the only friends worthy of having are the most popular--and therefore most influential or powerful--based solely on how many friends/followers they have?

Is it just me or is the whole notion of authority being based on number of friends but then wanting to pare down friends because having too many is "so 2008"--and thereby theoretically reducing your authority--confusing? In Li's case, and the case of other "Twitter elite", sure, defriending a few thousand social media nobodies wouldn't affect their own clout--but what about the 99.9% of other bloggers/tweeters out there who, for reasons either professional or personal, are trying to claw their way up the ranks? Are those people in the same position to start deleting their hard-earned followers and give up any hope of becoming social media somebodies?

Regardless of what the answers to those questions are, the reality remains that marketers are going to be in for a rude awakening if a defriending movement ever does cause the masses to start severing ties to their new social webs. While Li disparages the notion of having thousands of friends, businesses are banking on these connections. Take TurboTax's "Super Status" contest. TurboTax SuperStatus is the "ridiculously easy, super fun contest where [they] give you a challenge, and you solve it by updating your status on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter with your answer." Their "how to win" tips include "Get more friends/followers — the more friends and followers you have the better your chances are of winning."

Then there's Twitter Image, who offers "free custom Twitter backgrounds to any member with at least 3,000 followers, or for only $100 $75 for everyone else." "Everyone else" of course being the poor slobs who are not part of the Twitter elite. (Apparently this business model isn't really taking off, as evidenced by the $100 $75 bit.)

So which is it going to be--cut your network of friends to improve the quality of your social interactions, or increase it so you can win prizes?

The Real Reason I Love Social Media

In 140 characters or fewer, this is why I love social media:

@themediaishirin Helping laid off media employees find new work 140 characters at a time. Email us at mediaishiring@gmail.com

Reasons why this is awesome:

1) A 140 character resume as a serious way to find a new job? Hells yeah. You can't get more FIO than that, unless the world is reduced to communicating via meaningful glances or tongue clicks.

2) The name is really themediaishiring. But the dude either mistyped and left off the "g" or that was too long a username. Does he sweat it? Nope--in the awesome world of social media stuff like that just doesn't matter.

In traditional communications there are all kinds of rules: you have to have a journalism degree; you have to proof and edit and proof again--mistakes are forbidden; you have to use correct punctuation; you have to use italics and footnotes with subscripts and all that kind of stuff.

But in "new" media? Fuck that shit. Forget the "g" on the end of your name? Makes it more authentic. Italics? So old-school. Typos? Whatever--everyone knows bloggers are so busy furiously expressing themselves that they can't be bothered with editing or proofing. And don't even think of hiring someone to edit for you--that's a big no-no; again with the authenticity.

And times like now, when I started a post but have to be somewhere in 5 minutes so don't have time to think of a snappy ending--no matter.