so(cial)co(nsumer)centric
h0rris:
grayblue:

theaudacityofswope:

amber reminded us on twitter that it’s been one year since Chili’s brony-gate. looking up the controversy around it from that time reminds me just how wrong everyone got it.
they were not showing solidarity for bronies. they were not trying to market to bronies. they were not trying to trick them into restaurants for brony marked-up prices (as if that would even be possible to execute, but that was one theory on a brony forum). and they did not take down the tweet due to anti-brony sentiment. in fact, the tweet had nothing to do with the community.
someone, like a social media manager or a content strategist or a meme maven or whatever, said “hey, here’s a wacky trend. let’s get on it so we’ll look cool. we can be like weird twitter.” they did not bother to understand the community or the movement, and even if they had, they did not bother to ask “do we belong in this space?” (never mind that, when the tweet came out, the “hey, get a load of this” novelty around the discovery of bronies was passé).
they took it down because they realized they were fools. 
i am increasingly making recommendations for brands to stay away from bleeding-edge “cool.” two years ago, i wouldn’t have. i would’ve said (did, in fact) “add a human element, be off-brand, play with memes in ways your audience doesn’t expect.” 
climates change, platforms change, audiences change. brands don’t. their tactics might, but they are still here to sell you something. and they are not your friend. 

^ know the niches that align with your brand, and own them. things are decentralizing, and you need to know your own market above and beyond anything else.

grayblue:

theaudacityofswope:

amber reminded us on twitter that it’s been one year since Chili’s brony-gate. looking up the controversy around it from that time reminds me just how wrong everyone got it.

they were not showing solidarity for bronies. they were not trying to market to bronies. they were not trying to trick them into restaurants for brony marked-up prices (as if that would even be possible to execute, but that was one theory on a brony forum). and they did not take down the tweet due to anti-brony sentiment. in fact, the tweet had nothing to do with the community.

someone, like a social media manager or a content strategist or a meme maven or whatever, said “hey, here’s a wacky trend. let’s get on it so we’ll look cool. we can be like weird twitter.” they did not bother to understand the community or the movement, and even if they had, they did not bother to ask “do we belong in this space?” (never mind that, when the tweet came out, the “hey, get a load of this” novelty around the discovery of bronies was passé).

they took it down because they realized they were fools. 

i am increasingly making recommendations for brands to stay away from bleeding-edge “cool.” two years ago, i wouldn’t have. i would’ve said (did, in fact) “add a human element, be off-brand, play with memes in ways your audience doesn’t expect.” 

climates change, platforms change, audiences change. brands don’t. their tactics might, but they are still here to sell you something. and they are not your friend. 

^ know the niches that align with your brand, and own them. things are decentralizing, and you need to know your own market above and beyond anything else.

davidaedwards:

timemagazine:

TIME’s new cover: Never Offline. The Apple Watch is just the start. How wearable tech will change your life 
(1) People who write low quality posts are more likely to write again when they get negative attention. Furthermore, the quality of their posts deteriorates. This goes beyond the simple adage that you shouldn’t feed the trolls by giving them attention. The evidence suggests that negative feedback can perhaps actually create trolls. It also suggests that people getting negative feedback are more likely to give others negative feedback, too, spreading the infection.

(2) People who write high quality posts are encouraged by positive attention to write more. However, they aren’t as encouraged by positive attention as bad posters are by negative attention. Furthermore, the quality of their posts does not go up. Broadly speaking, encouragement doesn’t seem particularly effective.

rodbegbie:

Awesome Brit comedian Dave Gorman, using Facebook targeting to scare potential viewers for his new series of Modern Life is Goodish. Well worth watching online if you have access to a UK proxy…

(via 1, 2)

kenyatta:

unionmetrics:

Heidi Cohen has covered 6 Twitter Community Structures Simplify Your Work. Above is the Brand Cluster Twitter Structure:

High visibility, popular brands and celebrities attract large Twitter followings who tweet, comment and share information about them. BUT followers have NO connection to each other. 

These communities tend to have large or very large followings but little connection between all of the accounts that make up the following. Also:

It’s interesting to note that…Brand Cluster Twitter Communities do very little of their own tweeting.


What should brands do if their following matches this structure? Heidi offers some actionable marketing tips: 


Use your star power to build your Twitter following.  Since this type of Twitter follower doesn’t interact with each other, this follower base is mainly useful to distribute your message. BUT don’t expect your message to be relayed further or amplified!!!




Have a plan to build engagement with your Twitter following. To increase the power of your follower base, test a variety of different methods for interacting with followers and encouraging them to interact with each other.  


The entire piece is worth reading to help understand how different Twitter communities communicate, informing your Twitter strategy. 

Also give the original pewresearch report a read. (pdf)

kenyatta:

unionmetrics:

Heidi Cohen has covered 6 Twitter Community Structures Simplify Your Work. Above is the Brand Cluster Twitter Structure:

High visibility, popular brands and celebrities attract large Twitter followings who tweet, comment and share information about them. BUT followers have NO connection to each other. 

These communities tend to have large or very large followings but little connection between all of the accounts that make up the following. Also:

It’s interesting to note that…Brand Cluster Twitter Communities do very little of their own tweeting.

What should brands do if their following matches this structure? Heidi offers some actionable marketing tips: 

  1. Use your star power to build your Twitter following.  Since this type of Twitter follower doesn’t interact with each other, this follower base is mainly useful to distribute your message. BUT don’t expect your message to be relayed further or amplified!!!
  2. Have a plan to build engagement with your Twitter following. To increase the power of your follower base, test a variety of different methods for interacting with followers and encouraging them to interact with each other.  

The entire piece is worth reading to help understand how different Twitter communities communicate, informing your Twitter strategy. 

Also give the original pewresearch report a read. (pdf)

elmerseason:

wildcat2030:

"No single vice causes so much mental and physical debility,” began a section of a popular home medical guide published in 1921, “than masturbation. It impairs the intellect, weakens the memory, debases the mind, ruins the nervous system and destroys body, mind and soul." Its author, Isaac D Johnson, wasn’t saying anything particularly new. At the turn of the 20th century, moral panic about masturbation was so widespread, everyone from the Boy Scouts of America to Kellogg’s – who sold Cornflakes on the basis they were a “non-stimulating” dietary option for adolescent boys – was telling young men to keep their hands out of their pants. Believing it to cause everything from acne to depravity, the anti-masturbation movement saw the creation in 1876 of such devices as the “Stephenson Spermatic Truss”, a metal cage that fitted like a pair of boxer shorts and made an erection physically impossible (or at least, extremely painful). Like something from a Game of Thrones torture scene, there was even, in 1903, the development of an electrified version that would frazzle your penis like a fly if it dared venture upwards.

go read ..

we are attracted to things that reflect our core values, and our deepest understandings of the world, back at us. it’s why we like the art and media that we like, it’s part of why we get crushes on the people we get crushes on, it’s why we re-post what we do on tumblr, and it’s why we are attracted to the porn we are attracted to. 

porn doesn’t trick you into being attracted to things you aren’t attracted to. understanding it that way is really problematic. understanding our attractions as windows into our core beliefs and values can become a very valuable thing, because it doesn’t just show us our beliefs we are aware of, it shows us our shadow beliefs as well. porn can be especially useful for this because our relationships with it tend to be based on valence and arousal much more than conscious cognition.

keep in mind that it’s common, and possibly universal, for humans to carry and perform multiple sets of values and beliefs, even conflicting sets of values and beliefs. and that the more ubiquitously we hold a value or and understanding the less likely we are to even be cognitively aware of it. it exists for us more on the level of affects rather than on the level of conscious thoughts. 

so porn can be a bridge for pulling our affective reactions into consciousness in order to puzzle out what in our understandings and value systems causes them. doing that will def cause learning and growth for a person. and most likely it will also change what images one is attracted to. it is, in my own experience, a very effective way to do that.

i’m not saying that abstaining from porn is a bad idea though, just that i’ve found it more useful, and ultimately more effective, to change what one is attracted to than it is to try to abstain from attractions. i mean, abstaining from something one is still attracted to takes a lot of energy, but abstaining from something one isn’t attracted to is not a big deal, you know? if there is a way to accomplish the second option it is preferable to the first. 

cavetocanvas:

If you’re like me and follow a bunch of museums on places like Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc, you might have noticed more than a few posting about Marc Chagall’s birthday, where the museum/institution in question highlighted one of his works in their collection and wished him a happy birthday….

I get the anger. I personally loathe Facebook and I have for a long time, even as I appreciate and study its importance in people’s lives. But on a personal level, I hate the fact that Facebook thinks it’s better than me at deciding which of my friends’ posts I should see. I hate that I have no meaningful mechanism of control on the site. And I am painfully aware of how my sporadic use of the site has confused their algorithms so much that what I see in my newsfeed is complete garbage. And I resent the fact that because I barely use the site, the only way that I could actually get a message out to friends is to pay to have it posted. My minimal use has made me an algorithmic pariah and if I weren’t technologically savvy enough to know better, I would feel as though I’ve been shunned by my friends rather than simply deemed unworthy by an algorithm. I also refuse to play the game to make myself look good before the altar of the algorithm. And every time I’m forced to deal with Facebook, I can’t help but resent its manipulations.