January 20, 2011 § Leave a comment
I’m not an admirer, more like a user. But then again, who isn’t?
It’s hard not to notice when something changes in the Google stratosphere, whether it’s ‘instantizing’ the already instant with Google’s live search mode, or taking on another web giant at its own game (ahem, Skype) with Google Voice.
Indeed, the one blip on Google’s radar (besides China) would probably be social media. The multimedia giant has yet to stake its claim on the lucrative business of making the internet social.
Where Google Buzz failed to attract, well, buzz, Facebook and other socializing empires continue to rake in users, and revenue.
Cue the management change.
Media reports have it that Google, not wanting to be outdone by the likes of such Harvard snobbery (after all, both co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin met in Stanford), is gearing up for a change in strategy that has co-founder Page stepping in for long-time CEO Eric Schmidt, who held the post since 2001.
While I think the reaction to the personnel change has been rather disproportional, I’ll admit that it appears that the decision is more than a game of musical chairs.
By appointing Page, (who is set to debut in his new role this coming April 4th) Google hopes to better marry its technological and business side. At first glance that doesn’t seem to point to social media, but then consider one of the most valuable (by speculation anyway) internet companies today, Facebook, and then the most popular cross-media ‘technology’ to emerge in years, Twitter, and you get one thing in common: social media.
And it’s important to point out that Schmidt hasn’t really been demoted, he will still serve as executive chairman, which seems to suggest more of a change in direction versus poor job performance.
So in closing, I leave you with the best headline I’ve found related to the Google change thus far, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal: “Google Turns the Page on Schmidt.”
November 8, 2010 § Leave a comment
In 2009, Myspace was found to be home to thousands of sex offenders as well as aspiring musical bands. [No worries, they’ve since moved to Facebook.]
Foursquare, and other location-sharing applications, let you become your own GPS and is a privacy suit just waiting to happen.
Digital native or not, we’re all familiar with the fallout of when popular social networks become too social.
The latest notch in the proverbial stick is Google Buzz, an experiment by the tech giant that was launched earlier this year with mixed results. Though it has in no way reached the status of any of the aforementioned, it’s interesting to note that Buzz is not without its problems. As one of Gmail’s 170 million + users, I received the following email earlier this week:
My experiences with Google Buzz were uninspiring and short-lived. I basically clicked on it during its debut in February, only to find a mismatched collection of some of my Gmail contacts that included everyone from good friends, acquaintances, professors, and random people from some random mass emails I’ve received/or sent over the years.
It was weird. It lacked the interactivity of Facebook and even the shallowness of Twitter. And that was about it.
And by the looks of it, I wasn’t the only one to feel this way. Google’s current lawsuit stems from angry users who suddenly found their contact lists made available due to Buzz. You can view the terms of the settlement here:
In a time when companies are thirsting after web interactivity and web 3.0+, privacy issues are ablaze. And when you figure in the economic and editorial impact such services play in today’s journalism industry, it’s no small matter.
Leave it to Google to reap the cost without the benefits. On the social front, anyways.
September 6, 2010 § 1 Comment
“The future of social media in journalism will see the death of ‘social media’.”
Personally, the idea of the near-total annihilation of twitter would be akin to when the Wicked Witch of the West evaporates into thin air. It would be perfectly fine to me if social media were to no longer rule the Kingdom of the Web–leaving behind only a Facebook graveyard in its demise.
While I admit to being somewhat of an avid Facebook-er, the idea of tweets included alongside my morning broadcast is equivalent to adding a pound of sugar to Fruity Pebbles. It’s both way too sugary and way too early. (Though, I’ll admit to being a fan of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s tweets–it’s like my morning coffee: chock-full-of-gaffes.)
Of course if one were to continue reading the article you’d notice that Lavrusik is actually writing about the exact opposite: that is, the full integration of social media into journalism. Thus, the concept of “social media” would no longer apply as it would simply be a living, breathing, tweeting, thread of the fabric of news.
While a traditionalist-cynic like me finds the idea absolutely cringe-worthy, the guy has a point.
As traditional forms of journalism–print publications, broadcast, radio–struggle to stay afloat on their decrepid, sinking business models based on dried-up ad revenue streams, online journalism continues to sail forward.
While the industry buzz word last year might have been “social media,” this year’s buzz word might be “hyperlocal.” News 12 on Long Island embraces the term on broadcast graphics and websites like Patch.com, which utilize a Craigslist-esque approach to the news, are one of the few places that are readily hiring.
Even the “big dogs” of the industry can’t resist the allure of the number of hits that locality fostered by social media brings. The New York Times, The Financial Times, and virtually every major broadcast network has a twitter. And even the industry sweethearts like ProPublica, which uses public funding to pay for its Pulitzer award-winning investigative pieces, are reaping the benefits of going beyond simply being on the Web.
Unlike my doom and gloom, Lavrusik appears more optimistic about the shift, saying that the integration of social media into journalism will actually integrate journalists into the communities in which they write and report on. Elements of Journalism, anyone?
One of the fundamental elements of journalism, according to Kovach and Rosensthiel, is loyalty to the public. In other words: Thou shall provide the public with all they need to know to make their own decisions. It may also refer to: Thou shalt not isolate yourself from the very public you’re suppose to work for.
Is Lavrusik right? Could social media actually be the bridge that gaps the distance between the lonely reporters perched on their islands and the constituencies that they purport to serve?
It very well could be, but for now, it’s a shaky one.