Author Archives: JJ Miller
When I joined Facebook in 2008, I was excited about the opportunity to connect with old classmates, family, friends, and co-workers. It was a way to reconnect with people I’d lost touch with other the years or whom I wouldn’t have reconnected with it weren’t for Facebook. None of really knew how to use it. What do you post? Pictures of our gatherings, pets or kids and brief headlines about what we were doing or pictures of what we made for dinner seemed to be the idea. However, it quickly became evident that comments could be misunderstood and taken out of context or intended meaning was lost. Without a voice to express our tone and inflection, words became lost in translation. Minor conflicts developed because of the inability to portray inference in typed conversation or comments. And then we began to see the unfiltered and unrestrained opinions in posts and comments. Quickly social media evolved into platforms of competition and divisiveness.
Has the use of digital communication technologies, mainly social media platforms, caused us to be less empathic towards each other in online communication?
Lifestyles and culture continue to evolve as we further immerse ourselves into digital life. Humans remarkably adapt and evolve as conditions necessitate. We are built to handle change. However, the effects of digital life have created a cultural phenomenon having no precedent. Our very own distinctive identities have been reduced to phantom digital personas stripped of any authentic self. We wander through endless posts and feeds searching for meaning. We post our daily ins and outs in the hopes someone is paying attention and clinging to the notion that we matter in the sea of chatter. But just as we skim over the waves of communications, we also become lost in the massive digital world. Our communications and relationships changed form, making way for less substantial relationships, meaning, and purpose. The catch is that we choose to engage in the digital world. Our survival isn’t reliant upon our participation. Why are we devaluing ourselves, each other, relationships, and our time and how to do we stop this before our culture shifts any further?
Screenshot: Twitter – @itsWillyFerrell
Digital life thrives on the need for attention and inclusion. We post to get attention: to get “likes” and other affinity clicks, followers, friends, supportive comments, and views. But the need for attention isn’t enough. We want to feel connected. But then we are still we alone. The constant internal drive striving for more affinity and connection acts as an addiction. Some experts believe that social media attention seeking and the fear of missing out (FOMO) is an actual addiction based in mental health. Like addictions to drugs and alcohol, social media or digital life addiction causes that rush but then just as wicked of a crash. The high makes us feel important, connected. The crash causes anxiety, depression, and social isolation.
The issue of society and communication in the digital world is highly complex. Much like the political, global, and societal issues we try to navigate in the physical world. The answer to how we can change our course is just as complex. You can’t change the haters, the ones who intend to harm others. However, you can change yourself or at least become aware enough to be mindful about your own reactions and behaviors. In an idealistic world, we’d all live by the golden rule. Since that is not possible, I offer one piece of advice, stop. Stop thinking everything deserves a response (let alone an instantaneous one), stop thinking you and/or your beliefs are more important than someone else’s, and stop letting everything you read or hear control you. Stop and regain your sense of self.
We could close all our social media accounts and remove ourselves from the participatory parts of digital interaction but most of us won’t. The fear of missing out (FOMO) drives our continued slavery. All the reasons we participate in digital culture boil down to that. Somehow the digital world created a prison that we desperately strive to remain in.
However, the draw we have to digital life despite its negatives speaks more to what is lacking within ourselves. The positives we perceive outweigh the negatives because we could walk away, and we don’t. Then it is safe to assume that the problems of digital life are within each of us independently of each other. Sherry Turkle reminds us in her book Reclaiming Conversation (2018), “Some of the most crucial conversations you will ever have will be with yourself” (p. 319). The communications that are reflecting positives and negatives within our digital communications begin within ourselves. To change the digital communications culture, we must first change our inner dialogue. We must take back control of our emotions and reactions by addressing our repressed demons. And then, consider taking a break from social media to regain our true sense of self.
Screenshot: Instagram – @abcnews
Author note: This blog is comprised of excerpts from my research paper for the Fall term of ENGL745: Communication Strategies for Emerging Media taught by Dr. Daisy Pignetti. (University of Wisconsin – Stout)
We have so many discussions surrounding how our communication and empathy have been altered by digital culture and community. We’re still trying to define it and understand our own behaviors in this rapidly evolving hot digital world. But it isn’t tangible and there aren’t unspoken, yet understood social norms to guide us through it. So, maybe it is a digital wonderland where everything we once knew is now quite possibly, the opposite. Do social norms exist once we are interacting in a digital community? How could we possibly uphold them, if they were even defined, when there is no physical context in which to shame someone for not conforming?
Mad Hatter Tea Party from Alice in Wonderland
Photo source: Getty Images
Barry Thatcher, in Digital Literacy for Technical Communication (2010, p. 175), discusses three human threshold values that identify what humans usually negotiate within cultures. Although there are more, these three tend to cause the most dilemmas in cross-cultural contexts and are the most connected to different uses of digital media. The author asserts that cultures vary in the way that they handle these dilemmas, there usually is a yin/yang balance but also tension in which side is predominate… And that is what defines each cultures’ unique cultural integrity.
Photo source: Getty Images
The first is shared across all cultures. It is the dilemma of the “I” relating to others or to a group. We are familiar with the American preference for individualism. However, on the other side of that is collectivism. This is when individuals see themselves as highly dependent within a social construct or community. This is a cultural view holding social or family groups at higher importance than the individual, the “I”. Collective communication patterns emphasize interpersonal relationships, social hierarchy, social leveraging, group identities, close personal space, and writer-friendly writing patterns. (Spilka, Ed., 2010, p. 176) Can’t we see our digital interactions as both “I” and “We” driven? Of course, but does it have the same construct as our traditional physical interaction? It doesn’t seem so. The rules seem to flip-flop a bit.
The second commonality is that all cultures make and enforce rules, but the reason they are created and the flexibility of their enforcement varies. The universalist cultural approach is to establish the rules defining what is right to all individuals, regardless of social standing. The communication patterns associated with universalist protocols include strategies of fairness, justice and equality. However, the other approach is the particularist culture. This approach is such that the rules and decisions are applied depending upon relations and context. Thus there are specific sets of rules for each social relationship. While both cultural types exist within physical construct such as the universalist culture being more applicable to countries such as the U.S., Western European countries, and Canada and the particularist culture more applicable to Latin America or Asian countries, how do these cultural communication types change when we interact online? (Spilka, 2010, p. 177) Are Americans so universally standard in their digital world interactions or do they become more particularist, becoming more involved with individuals because of the anonymity our digital world offers us? Could this be why people develop such strong digital relationships with people whom they’ve never met face-to-face?
Lastly, all cultures negotiate public/private sense of space. This is the idea that human interaction is a degree of involvement across different spheres of life, and this usually involves some sort of divide and trust factor. (Spilka, 2010, p. 177). There are two different approaches to this, according to researchers. Those are: diffuse or specific cultures. A diffuse culture is usually collective; involving friends, coworkers, and other social acquaintances. These are relationships that tend to involve aspects of your personal life, at times overlapping sections. On the other hand, diffuse cultures can be those of high conflict, mistrust, and competition. Quite the opposite, specific cultures are those of high public trust and ease that allow for relationships to exist within their own spheres with little crossover with others. It favors more collaboration because the competitive piece is not relevant. At what points do we interact collaboratively within our digital world and, then when do we behave more as in a diffuse culture. I see the social media aspect of our digital world to be much more diffuse. In one respect we are interacting as friends, but then also competing at who has the best life (from a digital perspective, at least).
All the aspects of communication and culture that are difficult enough to navigate in the traditional sense, seem to be at times upside down in the digital wonderland.
Photo source: Getty Images
Have you ever noticed what makes you continue to read a blog or bounce after the first few moments? Is it the blogger’s words? Too many, too little, too boring, too complicated, or completely irrelevant to your search? Or could it be the layout? Overly cluttered or not broken up with images? The appeal of a blog is unique to each individual. So, how can a blogger create a product appealing enough to gain traction?
Photo source: Getty Images
Throughout the Communication Strategies for Emerging Media course, we learn how to create relevant and appealing blogs that embody the ideal structure and flow for effectiveness. Blogging, like all forms of technical communication, has its own style and character. What’s done on Twitter or Instagram, doesn’t have the same appeal or value in a professional blog. I’ve learned through this course and then analyzing my own interaction with blogs, that the simpler is better. I’m much more likely to read something all the way through if it is concise and not overly wordy.
Digital Literacy for Technical Communication (Spilka, Ed., 2010) offers good technical writing practices that apply well to blogging platforms. Granularity is a term used in technical writing that explains effective digital spaces should have a balance of text-based information chunks and multimedia applications. However, depending upon the audience, the way that is done is not always the same. We must understand our audience and the message we are trying to deliver. Granularity furthermore, has three levels of magnification to consider: microscopic (close perspective), mesoscopic (middle perspective), and macroscopic (far perspective). The microscopic perspective involves aspects such as text size, font, paragraph placement and length, and white space. While mesoscopic and macroscopic perspectives consider broader matters such as, multiple document delivery over various lengths of time. (p. 111)
Mapping or blog arrangement are also very important to audience appeal. An overly cluttered blog without a clear content menu leads to audience uncertainty or distrust. Organization is a strategy that can build blog appeal and reputation. The content itself should be clean and well arranged. However, a blogger should also consider ads or the minimization of, also in the mapping schema. No one likes to try to read a blog with ads blinking all around the content.
Photo Source: Getty Images
Ambience is a critical factor in all works of art and design, including digital communication. Ambient design allows the audience to to understand the purpose and content of a blog. The design should be created in a way that this perspective can be gained by only a quick glance. This allows ease of use and guides the audience through the blog interaction. (p. 120-121) Furthermore, this overall design strategy establishes trust and audience comfort, which are crucial in a popular blog. Images are important in creating the intended ambience. To choose the correct supporting images, it is important to have a well defined blog purpose and to understand your desired audience well. Aesthetics are also very important to creating an appealing blog site.
This is a photograph of mine, with some filter experimentation. It creates a unique feel that could be appealing in certain blogs involving photography, art, or even cats.
Folksonomy is also known as social tagging, social indexing, tagging, etc. It is a method by which content can be created and managed, via tags, to categorize the content. (p. 118) This method of tagging and categorizing content is done all over social media, the Web, and in blogging. As we write our blogs, we choose the categories/tags we want connected to our content so that it appears in relevant user searches. Aside from administrative blog tools, we can also accomplish this via hashtags which are trackable throughout social media (if our blogs are shared to those platforms) and the Web.
As technical and digital communication advances, we also make changes to improve the functionality and appeal of our blogs. While blogs are still very relevant, vlogs are quickly gaining attention. With that in mind, it will be interesting to see how the technical communicator roles develop should consumption of media become more video based. The technical writing practices could shift into video production. One could argue that they already have…
Photo Source: Getty Images
We are currently in the Web 2.0 World Wide Web era. It is a concept that was developed by Darcy DiNucci in 1999 and then popularized by Tim O’Reilly. It is the idea that the internet we engage with now is participatory of social in nature. The date of full Web 2.0 is not exactly determined. However, we do know that this change occurred in the mid 2000s. Prior to participatory web (Web 2.0), Web 1.0 is considered a one-way exchange of our information. While users could search and engage somewhat over the World Wide Web, the information was pushed or projected to the user. Even most question and answer or company managed chat forums were moderated by the company or organization source. There were limits to the amount in which users could actually interact with each other or companies. Web 2.0 introduced World Wide Web users to social media platforms, blogs, and other interactive technologies. Wikipedia Web 2.0
Photo source Wikipedia
The change in internet user engagement also effected technical writing professionals. The traditional static content of books and Web 1.0 content, now needed to be an interactive, living document. Digital advancements in technical writing during the Web 1.0 era included creating microgenres of content such as Frequently Asked Questions or online forums and also the PDF that allowed content to maintain its intended form for printing. Fast forward to Web 2.0, and technical writers are finding themselves becoming technological experts. Some of the ways technical writers have had to evolve their knowledge and specialties are: learning the digital publishing software tools to create user friendly and accessible content, understand web content and be able to use those platforms to create user-engaging content such as embedded maps, videos, calendars, etc., and to also be able to create engaging micro-content for webpages as opposed to writing long documents or novels.
In additional to content creation and management for general World Wide Web users, e-learning has also opened up many opportunities in technical writing. In Rachel Spilka’s book, Digital Literacy for Technical Communication (2010), she references that in 2008, the Society for Technical Communication (STC)’s Instructional Design and Learning Special Interest Group has grown significantly and 20% of all STC members belonged to it. Some technological knowledge required by technical writers in this field include: authoring tools used to create e-learning content such as Dreamweaver, Flash, Captivate, and Illustrator, learning content management systems (LCMS), and learning management systems.
Many other specialty avenues exist for technical writers thanks to the development of Web 2.0. Although the transitions over the most recent decades have been an uphill battle at times, technical writers have also gained the ability to diversity their career and have more interaction with content consumers. Web 3.0 is beginning to be rumored about. This will mean much more Artificial Intelligence involvement into our World Wide Web. It will be very interesting to see how the technical writing career field evolves involving Artificial Intelligence. Could it mean more new opportunities or could Artificial Intelligence take over some technical writing roles and responsibilities? I sure it won’t be long before we begin to transition to Web 3.0 given the rapid advancement of internet technologies.
I began an internship/volunteer role with a county-level political party this week. My role is to build reach and produce content for their social media platforms. I expect to experience the extremes of all online activism in the next few weeks. My interest in online activism began a few years ago when I realized impact of quick spreading information. As much negativity that comes with it, it is also does help to educate and rally people together. I am now calling it digital canvassing. I thought I was clever creating the term, but it actually does exist and has become widely used, especially leading up to the 2016 election. The power of social media tools for facilitating political participation and protest also open the door to use social media as surveillance, repression, censorship, and trolling. Since the introduction to Web 2.0 into our political climate, we’ve seen a rise in issues related to cyberbullying and trolling. (Preface: A decade of Web 2.0 – Reflections, critical perspectives, and beyond). The more volatile our political climate becomes, the more we see how the internet, especially social media, enables individuals to show the cruelest versions of themselves. However, we also get to see the best by stories and communications of support, cooperation, and collaboration.
Howard Rheingold, in Net Smart, discusses convergence culture depends upon what Pierre Lévy calls “collective intelligence”, in reference to Wikipedia. This idea “refers to a situation where nobody knows everything, everyone knows something, and what any given member knows is accessible to any other member upon request on an ad hoc base.” (Rheingold, 2014, p. 159) This type of collaboration goes well beyond Wikipedia and has been studied in many different social situations. In an interview with Lévy, Rheingold asked about “the skills needed to participate in and instigate collective intelligence activity.” The answer exhibits the way we interact on social media platforms or through blogging. It is a creating a “synergy between personal knowledge and collective knowledge management.” (Rheingold, 2014, p. 160). Our collective intelligence is used in online activism. It may be part of its foundation. The positive desired outcome is the sharing information to create a likeminded group and to gain members. However, we’ve also witnessed the ability to troll each other in these interactions which then becomes divisive.
Merriam-Webster defines power as (entry one of three), “1a(1): ability to act of produce an effect, 1a(2): ability to get extra-base hits, or 1a(3): capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect.” (Power) Understanding that by definition, power is capacity to elicit effect, conveys that power should not necessarily be considered a positive thing. The power of online activism is its capacity for producing effect, positive and negative. Since our immersion into Web 2.0, online activism, especially political, has become a daily, sometimes hourly bombardment. Before the Web, especially, Web 2.0, we were able to limit our political driven activism exposure to television commercials (usually only aired near elections), some print materials, or door-to-door canvassers. Now, we can’t run away from it. Now, is the power of the online activism encouraging our political engagement and encouraging us to vote, or is it deteriorating our moral so severely that we chose to not engage at all?
Is freedom of speech, in coordination with online activism, creating a healthy functioning collective intelligence? While this could be argued to great lengths and we still wouldn’t all agree, is that the point? The opening line in an article in Forbes discussing the internet and activism states, “How we choose to act in extreme circumstances helps to define our character.” The article goes on to easily explain how quickly we can find our own collective in the digital world. From joining Green Peace to save the world or to join a terrorist organization, it is easy to find your own collective. (The internet and the next generation of activism) We’ve had conversations resulting from blogs this semester surrounding the idea, ‘if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say it at all.” At what point are our words creating divisive online activism and actually causing great harm? I anticipate this question only becoming more difficult to simply answer as our interaction with online activism grows. I think it is better to kind and if you can’t be kind, be silent.
We live in a participatory culture that is constantly demanding our attention and interaction. Teenagers are highly engaged in this culture and could be setting the expectations of social media engagement. A 2005 survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project referenced in Howard Rheingold’s book, Net Smart, 87% of children between the ages of 12 and 17 were online. (Rheingold, 2014) A more recent study by Pew Research Center, conducted in 2018 of teens ages 13-17, found that 95% of teens own or have access to a smart phone and that 45% say they are online on a near-constant basis. Furthermore, those teens recently polled have gravitated to other social media platforms rather than Facebook. Pew Research Center: Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018
Facebook is no longer the predominant social media platform for teenagers, not even close. While adults seem to be using Facebook still more frequently, I’ve noticed that changing. Personally, I have started using YouTube and Instagram more than Facebook. My social media platform engagement change began because of my daughter. However, I quickly understood the gravitation towards Instagram and YouTube.
Teenagers and now adults are becoming social media producers in many different ways. We are constantly engaged in this participatory culture. In Net Smart, Howard Rheingold defines participatory culture as, “one in which a significant portion of the population, not just a small professional guild, can participate in the production of cultural materials ranging from encyclopedia entries to videos watched by millions. And it is a culture populated by people who believe they have some degree of power.” (Rheingold, 2014) One big outcome of this participatory culture is that web participants then become curators.
By the creation of media, consuming it, sharing it, and critiquing it, every web participant is actively engaging in this participatory culture. There are many benefits or rewards to being involved in social media. Pew Research Center also questioned how teens are currently using social media but also questioned about the negative impacts.
From the data, it is obvious that there are some strong positive effects, but also some very serious negative effects. To what degree is this participatory culture then more harmful than helpful? According to Howard Rheingold, those in these participatory cultures believe they have some degree of power. (Rheingold, 2014) However, from the Pew Research Center data, bullying and/or rumor spreading is the main concern of 27% of the teens who reported mostly negative experience with social media engagement. This doesn’t indicate that the receiver of bullying feels that they have any power. To that point, in Howard Rheingold’s definition of participatory culture, I would change the part that states these people feel that they have power (in general) to interaction in our participatory culture gives us the illusion of power. That’s not to say that individuals don’t actually have power in certain interactions, at certain moments. However, to the degree that our culture changes, it opens up new ways to cause harm. Even the most influential celebrities get harassed and bullied on social media. They have power in one aspect but then zero in the next.
Participatory cultural effects in our digital age create new challenges and I have a lot of concern for teenagers being able to cope with this constant interaction. Considering 95% own or have access to a smart phone and 45% of them are online on a near-constant basis, according to the Pew Research data. The new technologies necessitate an adult understanding in order to help teenagers navigate in our participatory culture. And to help us adults, too.
Ambient Awareness is a social science term Clive Thompson used in his article, Brave New World of Digital Intimacy, to explain the new constant online environment we communicate and interact in. This enables us to maintain weaker social connections in an incessantly overwhelming digital environment. Facebook was the frontrunner in this form of digital interaction but it has developed to now include microblogging, Twitter, Instagram, etc. Ambient awareness also considers the narcissistic. tendencies for people to think that every single little thought or occurrence in every moment of their life necessitates a social media post of microblog. This awareness and behavior weakens social ties and further creates an ego-centric mainframe where the social media user is not so concerned with what is going on in other’s lives but rather the importance of their personal posts. Are loose connections or acquaintances preferred over the deeper connection of the past?
Wikipedia further defines ambient awareness as an awareness propagated from relatively constant contact with one’s friends and colleagues via social media platforms. Wikipedia Ambient Awareness
It would seem that the constant connection created a deeper disconnect or even devalued the meaning in social interaction. It’s as if we don’t even
“see” each other as human beings but rather view these interactions as transactional.
Anthropologist Robin Dunbar believes that evolutionary structure of social networks limits us to 150 meaningful relationships at a time, despite the rise in social media. In the following TED Talk, “Why the Internet Won’t Get You Anymore Friends”, Robin Dunbar argues why social media doesn’t give us the expanded social connectedness that it promises. He makes you question the quality of communication done on social media platforms. Loose connections are the substance in social media communication.
So, how ambient awareness and the brain’s inability to have larger numbers of truly meaningful relationships effecting our workplace collaboration? Clive Thompson goes on to further discuss in his New York Times article that ambient awareness allows us to maintain weaker social connections that actually create more common ground in workplace collaboration because the ongoing updates build the social context for collaboration. B.J. McNely, in the October 2001 publication, Informational communication, sustainability, and the public writing work or organizations from Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (1-7), further explains that social media practices such as micro-blogging, as discussed in this post, are not seen as formal work, but rather the informal communication that happens alongside the work. In this context, ambient awareness seems complimentary to the workplace by creating an informal way to collaborate that still builds trust and understanding.
While loose connections are viewed to be harmful to our social interaction, they do in fact have value in certain situations.
The desire for human connection drives much of our communication. But at what point does hyperconnectivity become anxiety inducing or silencing?
Hyperconnectivity is the extreme increased interconnectedness of people who resulted from technological advances. Social media platforms massively contribute to hyperconnectivity. Numerous studies and articles are written to address and discuss the impacts on society, communication, and mental health as a result of the rapid changes in to our interconnectedness and changes to communication methods.
Ben Abbot, for Virgin (How the human need to connect works with hyperconnectivity), addresses the fact that as a result of comparing ourselves to others, we struggle with insecurity. This is a result of us viewing all the happy, idealistic posts our social media “friends” post and comparing them to what’s really going on in our lives, as opposed to the idealistic posts we make on social media. I’ve felt inadequate by other’s projection of perfection on Facebook, even by those who I know well. I do understand that no one is perfect. However, I quickly forget that when all I see is everyone’s projections of how they want their digital reputation to come across. It seems there is a goal of digital perfection. I’m actually taking a break from Facebook for a while because my hyperconnectivity caused rising anxiety and I started to use silence for self-preservation.
Hyperconnectivity has caused me to become silent in order to preserve my dignity and sanity. This is the result of a theory known as the Spiral of Silence. The Spiral of Silence is a term created in 1974 by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a German political scientist. According to the website, Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann: The spiral of silence, dedicated to Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s work, her assumptions of social behavior are controversial but the spiral of silence theory is widely cited and replicated in social sciences. The spiral of science is based upon numerous hypotheses. The core basis to this behavior is that people are afraid of social isolation and therefore will be silent if they feel their opinion or belief will be rejected by the mass of their public sphere (in our digital world, those would be our Facebook page “friends” or Twitter followers.). The spiral of silence is typically elicited by controversial issues (politics, abortion, religion, etc.) and causes someone to be silent out to fear of pressure or social isolation. The decision to be silent usually is done subconsciously (according to Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s research. However, I’ve consciously made the decision to remain silent in many cases. In 1974, when Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann defined the spiral of silence, mass media had a recognizable effect on public opinion by amplifying one side’s opinion and thus silencing the other. This sounds to me that it is much more likely that silence is done so more consciously rather than subconsciously. It is not that individuals changed their mind to avoid isolation, they kept their opinion to themselves. An article by James Vincent (The “Spiral of Science”: How social media encourages self-censorship online,) discusses research done by Pew Researching Group that proves people will stifle their opinions on social media if they believe that their friends won’t agree with them. Further more, the research and James Vincent’s article agree that concern for social isolation may not be the only reason for silence. It appears our hyperconnectivity is evolving the spiral of silence into including factors such as “likes” and the permanency of posting online opinions into our silence.
Social media influences the spiral of silence on a much larger scale than mass media in 1974 because of hyperconnectivity. Further more, the way we become silent is different and the reasons we stay silent are different. There are many reasons to stay silent: we value what others think of us, we want to avoid conflict, we don’t get enough “likes” on our posts, or we are simply overwhelmed by hyperconnectivity and all the information that we simply need a break. I expect this is a short list of reasons and will grow as more research is done on the effects of hyperconnectivity and human behavior. Has our desire to feel connected caused us more harm than good?
Social Media gives us the connection we long for as human beings. We feel part of something so much bigger than ourselves and are able to connect with past and current friends on a daily basis, if we so choose. However, is social media connecting us the way we believe it to be or are we all incorporated into a false consciousness where what seems to be super connected is actually complete alienation? One could argue that it is a matter of perspective, possibly determined by our internal definition of “connected” or that we are potentially being brainwashed on a massive scale. According to Mary Chayco’s book SuperConnected: The Internet, Digital Media, & Techno-Social Life page 71, the idea of false consciousness is that individuals may not realize that giving away their free time by making and reproducing creative digital communications, they are actually benefiting the more powerful in society rather than themselves. In other words, social media users and producers are focused upon the view that they are being creative or accomplishing a goal but actually those free efforts are benefiting companies. Of course there are paid promotional considerations, influencer marketing, and other ways to monetize a blog or other social media platform efforts… However, who is benefiting the most from this digital labor?
The weight of our social media engagements.
Image Source: https://goo.gl/images/sZPpck
Digital Labor is the act of individuals producing content for public consumption on social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and others that benefits organizations and corporations (Chayco, 2018, p. 71). It’s an organization of human experience that drives marketing, mostly unbeknownst to the producer and the consumer. In one respect, by the vast amount of digital media consumers are exposed to, they learn about products and services that may not have crossed their path or are able to be involved in crowdsourcing or crowdfunding. However, one could argue that by websites and companies having this inexpensive or even free digital labor, that consumers are exploited.
We rush to social media as a way to express ourselves creatively and to be included in the digital society. Engagement on social media has become to norm in our highly digital society so much that the act of not being engaged in social media is seen as antisocial. We’ve come to a collective consciousness in regard to digital media behavior and we didn’t even realize it. We didn’t question it. In addition to digital labor, companies also gain information about online behavior by the use of “cookies” (Chayko, 2018, p. 84-85). This online behavior monitoring and data mining, along with our digital labor, reveals so much personal information about an individual that I’m certain they wouldn’t just tell a complete stranger. However, that is exactly what is happening with our digital media interactions. The video below shows how labor has evolved and what it looks like as a “social media workforce”. It speaks to the idea that we do not feel we are being exploited or alienated as a result of coercion and then our consent. It’s a bold statement and hard to accept because we like that rush of human interaction. Again, there is much value in digital communications but we have a responsibility to understand exactly what it is we’re engaging in and agreeing to.
Digital labor can be beneficial to consumers on social media platforms but as producers and consumers, we need to reclaim our worth. Social media users are valuable to corporations by their ability to reach others. So, how do we make certain we are not free or cheap digital labor? It starts with awareness.
Blogs have become my main use for Facebook. While I first used it as a social outreach tool, I now appreciate it as the one place I can see all the blogs that interest me in one feed. I also technically follow many bloggers on Pinterest. Pinterest is my go-to place for recipes, craft ideas, or sewing projects. When I click on those Pins, I’m directed to the site. I find that I am more likely to engage with these bloggers if I can use certain social media platforms as a central feed or board. Otherwise, as my email inbox fills up, I’m more likely to delete communications without reading them.
Digital Marketing Strategy is an excellent tool for gaining blog followers.
From the article, 16 Top Tips from Blogging Experts for Beginners, by Belle Beth Cooper, she states she’s heard blogging referred to as a “mixture between an art and a science”. What a precise statement! The balance between the writer’s artistic, personal expression and attracting an active readership is an analytical challenge.
I’d like to touch on a few of the 16 tips provided in Belle Beth Cooper’s article that tie in Digital Marketing Strategy and blogging.
#4 – Build an email list.
Creating a call-to-action encouraging readers to sign up for an email list does make sense because your intent is having that open channel to reach their inbox. However, consumers are bombarded with emails on a daily, if not hourly basis, and realistically because of the demands on people’s time, your email is more likely to end up in the trash. Although the intent of building an email list is to circumvent competitive factors such as Facebook News Feed ranking (EdgeRank isn’t used anymore by name but Facebook still ranks based upon 1000’s of factors using algorithms) and Search Engine rankings, there are simple ways Bloggers can stay visible on social media platforms.
I encourage you watch this brief video by Facebook, “How Does Facebook News Feed Ranking Work?”.
A few recommendations I offer to create different call-to-actions encouraging readership are:
- Encourage readers to not only “like” your page but to also “follow” it.
- Encourage comments to your blog posts on social media.
- Consider “sponsored” posts. “Sponsored” posts are available on most social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest. “Sponsored” posts allow the blogger to target consumers who’ve already indicated behaviors that tie into their target audience. Blogger’s can determine their own spend and the analytics immediately show if it paid off.
#6 – Focus on building an amazing call-to-action.
A central component of any Digital Marketing Strategy is the call-to-action. What do you want the visitor to your blog site or webpage to do? As much as a blogger should stay true to their artist output, how are you going to encourage people to read it?
Nate Kontny, founder of Draft, a blog for writers, noted that when he created a strong, relevant call-to-action, it “immediately increased my Twitter followers by 335% in the first 7 days!”
The proof is in the analytics!
#7 – Give stuff away.
This sounds ridiculous at first because aside from wanting to share your writing as a blogger, there’s also the intent for it to be an income source. However, the main idea behind “giving stuff away” is showing good faith to your readership. Share those writing tips, offer a new seasonal recipe, or give away a PDF sewing pattern. The best way to win followers is to offer them something they didn’t have prior to coming to your blog site or webpage. This encourages readers to follow your blog.
According to research by Incentivibe, “adding a giveaway contest pop-up to the bottom-right of their website led to 125% more email subscribers”. Again, I believe that the main focus should not only be on email subscribers, but the same giveaway contest could be offered to gain social media followers.
Digital Marketing Strategy can be a very useful tool in operating a successful blog!