Traditional Views

The Women’s World Cup final between Japan and the United States this past summer got an 8.6 overnight TV rating, but that was not the statistic everyone was talking about. The thrilling finish to the game drew 7,196 tweets per second, dwarfing previous spikes such as Osama bin Laden’s death (5,106 per second) and Super Bowl XLV (4,064).

This reflects a continuing trend of social media playing a large role in big TV events. James Poniewozik wrote an article for TIME about this phenomenon in March of 2010. He noted that old media has not traditionally fared well against new media: “New technologies are born – radio, TV, the Internet – and either kill what came before or render it less relevant.” But his hypothesis is that social media (i.e. “new media”) has actually helped TV (“old media”) with its big events. Record TV audiences still tune in for the Super Bowl, Olympics and Academy Awards ceremonies.

As Poniewozik says, people like to talk about big events. We throw parties for occasions like the Super Bowl and American Idol finales so we can share the experience with as many people as possible. We are eager to go to work/school the next day to hear from everyone who could not make it to the party. Well, now we do not have to wait until the next day. Twitter and Facebook allow us to instantly hear from hundreds or even thousands of other people. I can immediately find out what Bill thinks about the Steelers pass defense or what Jenna thinks about both teams wearing the same color of pants.

If Poniewozik is correct, old media folks should not look at social media as a problem. It can compliment TV programs and can be a great benefit with a good strategy.

With a good strategy. Much easier said than done. Social media is still a relatively new field and most of us are still trying to figure out what works and what does not. I found an article discussing a few ways traditional media is going social. Whether these tactics have been effective is beside the point for the purposes of this blog post – the mere fact that they are doing something shows that they are not looking at social media as a problem.

My favorite example from the article had to do with the efforts of John A. Byrne, the editor-in-chief of the business magazine BusinessWeek. He is using social media to get story ideas from consumers of his magazine. Readers submit pitches to Byrne, and he and a community editor review each of them and assign at least one per week to a BusinessWeek journalist.

The Women’s World Cup final broke the Twitter record not because women’s soccer passed up football in popularity. It did so because Twitter has gotten increasingly popular, and that trend has showed no signs of stopping. The growing popularity of social media has been discussed ad nauseum, and old media will not do itself any favors by ignoring it. There are examples of social media complimenting old media, and the segments that find other ways to utilize social media will gain a crucial competitive advantage.

Blogging

In May of 2005, Businessweek featured a cover story titled, “Blogs Will Change Your Business” by Stephen Baker and Heather Green. This was right as blogs were starting to reach a large audience, but before big social networks like Facebook and Twitter had any sizable market presence. Nevertheless, the online version of the story continued to receive so much attention for such a long period of time that Businessweek updated the story in February of 2008 to fix and update more than 20 notes. But even after an extensive revision of the story, the overall message stayed the same: businesses that figure out blogging acquire a competitive advantage over those that choose to ignore the phenomenon.

One thing is unquestionably true about blogs – they exist, and the number of them is growing every day. As of Sept. 21, 2011, there are 171,637,335 identified blogs on the internet, and 95,702 new blogs popped up in the last 24 hours (stats taken from BlogPulse.com). How many of those blogs are potential customers? How many of them are talking about your business, positively or negatively? Of those that are talking about your business, how many people do they reach, and how effective are they at communicating their message?

Businesses that fail to monitor the online discussion of what they are doing are at risk of missing out on opportunities to correct misinformation or respond to consumers’ concerns. They will also miss out on learning what consumers care about. “Think of the implications for businesses of getting an up-to-the-minute read on what the world is thinking.” Advertisers can track responses to their ad campaigns, and film studios can see which movies are generating buzz, for example.

Businesses aren’t the only ones that can benefit from understanding blogs. A growing number of people from an unlikely source are turning to blogs to get their careers of the ground – academics. Sarah-Louise Quinnell is a PhD graduate and managing editor of the blog PhD2Published. She wrote an online article recently for The Guardian titled, “Don’t doubt the value of blogging in academic publishing”. She says that many of her colleagues have dismissed blogging even though it “encourages wider participation and generates instant debate.” She argues that the academic community should embrace it, especially researchers early in their careers.

Academic journals are invaluable for publishing well written and analytically rigorous research papers, but getting a paper into a journal requires an extensive editing process and can take up to two years, according to Dr. Quinnell. Conversely, blogs “allow for immediate engagement and debate of current issues.” If it really can take up to two years to get published, imagine how much could have changed in that time frame.

Dr. Quinnell’s article and the Businessweek story both argue that blogs shouldn’t be regarded as unimportant. All businesses and researchers don’t need to maintain their own professionally written blogs, but they need to be aware of what blogs can do. This will lead them to monitor what is being said and what is important in the minds of the people they are trying to serve. In an increasingly competitive world, squandering any competitive advantage could be the difference between success and failure.

Organizational uses of social media

I’m a sucker for strongly worded critiques. If an author says things like, “The food at the restaurant was abysmal to the point that I intentionally threw up in my mouth to get rid of the bad taste”, sign me up.

So when I came across an article on Forbes.com titled “Skittles’ Stupid Social Media Trick”, it took me all of a nanosecond to click on the link. And I have to say, reading Laura Burkitt shred the marketing tactics of my favorite candy brand was sweeter than the figurative “taste of the rainbow” that Skittles claims its product delivers.

Skittles didn’t want to lag behind the rest of the industry with its social media efforts, so its marketers got rid of the traditional home web page and put in its place “a collage of content from social networking sites.” Their main error was including a live, unedited Twitter feed. It didn’t take long before anonymous, attention-seeking Twitter followers began directing “scalding” comments to its feed containing profanity. Because Skittles didn’t use a social media aggregator that would allow them to moderate comments before they were posted, the offensive language was displayed on their website for everyone to read.

Burkitt doesn’t fault Skittles for experimenting with Twitter on its website. She criticizes them for not using a social media aggregator, such as FriendFeed or Plaxo, to “view comments and moderate them before they are posted.” Companies now have the liberty of doing this thanks in large part to PepsiCo. FriendFeed never had this feature until Pepsi requested that they make the service available only to Pepsi, but they added the option for all companies.

Now I want to shift from a company that didn’t get social media to one that excels at it: the NBA. I briefly mentioned this in last week’s post, but their social media aptitude deserves a more in-depth discussion.

In April of this year, Maria Burns Ortiz wrote an article for ESPN.com titled, “The NBA’s social media explosion”. She mentions several facts and figures illustrating the NBA’s dominance over its competitors in the social media realm: “The NBA has positioned itself as the top sports league in social media – No. 1 on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube in terms of respective followers, likes and views.” At the time this article was written, the NBA had 10.5 million users who like and follow its official Facebook and Twitter page; the NFL, which is easily the most popular sports league in the United States, had yet to crack 5 million.

What has this done for the NBA? It has engaged fans in an unprecedented way. They can get to know their favorite stars on a much more personal level than ever before (approximately half of the NBA’s players are on Twitter). League and team officials can also monitor relevant trends and see what the fans are talking about. This allows them to gain valuable consumer information for marketing and public relations purposes.

I am baffled as to why the other professional sports leagues haven’t followed the NBA’s lead on this. Perhaps the NFL doesn’t view the NBA as a viable competitor (indeed, revenue for the NFL dwarfs that of the NBA). But didn’t we just spend a summer listening to NFL owners say they weren’t making enough money? Instead of trying to convince us that you aren’t getting your fair share of revenue, please spend more time getting to know your consumers and delivering us what we want.

Social Media: The Big 7

I can point to a specific date as to when I started to realize how much social media was changing the structure of news: June 17, 2009. On what was otherwise a slow news day in the sports world, Minnesota Timberwolves forward Kevin Love took to Twitter to announce that his coach, Kevin McHale, wouldn’t return next season.

In this instance, an athlete completely eliminated the middleperson and broke major news directly to thousands of fans. I had grown accustomed to seeing this type of news appear as “breaking news” on the bottom line of ESPN and attributed to a sports journalist like Marc Stein or Ric Bucher. But now, there was a platform where an athlete could easily make the announcement immediately after finding out and many people would learn the news shortly thereafter.

The content of Love’s tweet reveals one more characteristic about how social media has changed news delivery: “Today is a sad day … Kevin McHale will NOT be back as head coach next season.” Instead of finding out about McHale’s forced departure in a story filled with manufactured quotes, I was reading someone close to the situation explain the news in a much more personal manner. He was also reacting at the moment he found out, before he could consult with a PR specialist to craft out every word. This is in striking contrast to the types of statements usually released to journalists who break these types of stories. For example, when ESPN.com ran a story about McHale’s firing a few days later when it became official, it included this quote from Timberwolves’ owner Glen Taylor:

"I will be forever grateful for the work Kevin did in returning to his home state and assembling a team that made eight straight playoff appearances. Kevin brought an enormous amount of basketball talent and passion to our organization and I wish him nothing but the best."

Taylor probably means every word of that statement. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that Taylor didn’t say these words right after the decision was made.

Twitter isn’t the only social media website that has changed my relationship with professional athletes. In 2006, ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons wrote a story titled “The YouTube Hall of Fame.” One of the videos that made the list was a montage of highlights by former baseball and football star Bo Jackson.

Simmons pointed out that one of the reasons he loves YouTube is because it’s “the only place where forgotten superstars like (former NBA star) Shawn Kemp and Bo Jackson live on.” I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, and I believe that it’s not just the “forgotten” superstars who have benefitted from YouTube. I wasn’t born early enough to experience the Magic Johnson and Larry Bird era, but as a lifelong NBA fan I have been told repeatedly how great they were. Every once in a while, I would catch of clip of some of their best plays, but I had to work hard to get visual evidence of their magnificence. Now I can go to YouTube and instantly watch videos like this and this and see with my own eyes the work Magic and Larry did on the basketball court.

This all makes me wonder why Major League Baseball (MLB) continues to stick by their absurd YouTube policy. They regularly remove baseball videos from video sharing websites like YouTube because of copyright infringement. But the MLB values its place in American history more than any other league. How does providing fans with visual evidence of historic moments in baseball history hurt the MLB's brand? Wouldn’t it be good for the league to allow people like me to watch highlights of Roger Clemens’s 20-strikeout game against the Seattle Mariners in 1986? I don’t understand what the MLB has to lose by doing this. It might even make people think baseball is an exciting sport to watch.