ploked.com

Yesterday, Reuters released what could be called a “reverse step” in social media policy, which instructs their journalists to avoid bias and specifically instructs them not to scoop the news wire by breaking their stories on social media sites first.

While it’s understandable that Reuters seeks to uphold the trust placed in them by their readers, the policy is moving in the wrong direction as many other online content providers strive to provide information in real-time. Indeed, the past year has seen Facebook, Google, and other online mediums provide real-time results in their search content. Additionally, search aggregators, such as LeapFish, not only provide results based on the major search engines, but access to real-time results as well, all from a single query.

The instructions make it clear that journalists are to release stories via the wire first, and then on social media outlets, including Twitter, secondarily.

The policy advises Reuters’ journalists to seek approval from their managers before using Twitter for any professional purpose, and also suggests that someone within the Reuters organization check the tweets before they’re posted so that personal bias is not disclosed. Reuters also suggests that journalists separate their personal accounts from their professional accounts.

Jennifer Bruin at Mashable states clearly what seems to be the news organization’s major concern:

“[Reuters] is torn between encouraging employees to use social media and the realization that the online behaviors of their staff put them at risk, a sentiment expressed in the comment that these tools, if misused, could ‘threaten our hard-earned reputation for independence and freedom from bias or our brand.’” Read the rest of this entry »

Do you ever wonder why, with all of the marvelous personal info that Facebook collects, they’d allow an advertiser to run an idiotic ad for mortgage refinancing with a hairy, caveman looking dude on it, or those ridiculous “Find out who Googled You” ads with the image of a college girl that wouldn’t Google you if she were the last piece of ass on Earth?

It’s obvious that the ads must be working because they’re still running. Either that, or they’re running on a pay-per-click basis and no one is clicking, thus costing the  advertiser nothing. I’ve come to think that social media is such a targeted platform that, when an offending ad comes up, I never fail to wonder which “marketing genius” dropped the ball.

Don’t get me wrong…I don’t have anything against banner ads on my FB page, nor do I have anything against the companies behind the ads. What bugs me is that we hear about what a great platform Facebook is for behavioral and geographic targeting, then these Run-of-Site (ROS) ads show up.  I know that money is money, but when the advertising starts to negatively affect the medium, or the brand, it’s time to make a decision on which one is of the most importance.

Why am I bitching? Primarily because I’m allowed. Yet…I do have a point, although it’s feasible that I’m the only person who took notice. This is doubtful, but theoretically within the realm of possibilities.  Maybe Facebook needs the money, although Inside Facebook projects that the social media powerhouse could boost ad revenues from an estimated $700 million in 2009 to a whopping (estimated) $1.1 billion in 2010. Why estimated? Facebook does not release their advertising revenues. So, maybe those “Who Googled You?” ads are working perfectly… Read the rest of this entry »

When we think of social networking tools, the obvious choices that come to mind are Facebook, Twitter, and (perhaps) MySpace. They  follow a somewhat similar format; you can add your own media (music, pictures, links, etc.), there’s a place for you to give everyone the 411 on what you’re up to or who you are, but more importantly, you can socially network. Your friends or people you awkwardly added to your friends list can interact with you and vice versa. You can even follow people or have them follow you, despite how unbelievably creepy that sounds. So when I first heard Chatroulette being mentioned in this arena, I really began to wonder…is this really a social networking tool?

Here are some things you should know about Chatroulette.  First, unlike Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace, there is an age restriction to Chatroulette -  you must be 16 and over to enter. Secondly, anything goes for the most part. Despite the weak warning from the site, anything you do is really all good unless someone reports it. You can see an Al Gore masked man, followed by boobs, followed by some American troops stationed overseas who are just as curious about Chatroulette as you are. Thirdly, this was invented by a 17-year old boy in Moscow, yet the servers for the company are in Germany. Why Germany? Because it’s halfway between the United States and Russia (there’s something oddly politically poetic in that precise planning).

But, I digress. As much as I wanted to shun Chatroulette from the realm of social networking and put it in the category of short term novelty/failed speed dating site, I have to admit, there is some social networking going on there. I don’t just get a link to a rockers music – she can play it for me live. I don’t need to look for the latest pictures; there’s a live feed of your face. And I don’t need to add a comment on a wall and wait for a response. I can tell that strange Asian guy in a bra “Dude, that bra is working for you.” In a way, I am social networking.

It is nowhere near as organized as one of the other major social networking sites, but it works, and maybe it’s better. Socially interacting with total strangers seems to be a bold move, but it’s strangely making the world a smaller place which seems to be the overall goal for social networking sites. In the end, Chatroulette might not be the prettiest person at the party, but it’s the one you’ll have the most fun with.