Screw ‘em: why your fan count doesn’t matter

Screw 'Em

Here are the slides and spiel from the presentation I gave today at Digital Shoreditch. You can also download them as a PDF on SlideShare.

Slide03

This is me. Mediaczar. I have more than 5000 followers, so I’m probably quite popular, and you should listen to me.

Slide04

Although I’m not as popular as my evil twin, Evilczar. He has twice as many fans as I do, although I have reason to believe he may have bought those followers.

Today’s presentation is a bit of a collaboration between the two of us. I hope that won’t upset you. Or confuse you.
Continue reading

Defamatory Retweets

There’ve been a couple of stories over the past two days about defamatory tweets. Lord McAlpine is (understandably) considering taking legal action. Now it transpires that retweeting a defamatory tweet might be libellous (h/t to Jimisha Lakhani for this story.)

It’s an interesting thing; this — and we’re all at risk one way or another.

Many years ago I jokingly link-blogged someone’s wonderfully self-aggrandising (and really quite un-self-consciously funny) online biog, adding the tags “doogiehowser” and “fraud” by way of commentary.

About six months later, I received a phone call (I was in the middle of deep frying felafel for a dinner party). The chap had come across my link during a back link search, and was asking me — very politely — whether I’d remove it. What he said was something like “please would you remove that link?” What I heard was “Mat, you idiot, there goes your house.” I’d jokingly — but very publicly — accused a complete stranger of fraud.

If you haven’t already, you should read George Monbiot’s “Lord McAlpine – An Abject Apology”. I’m not a huge Monbiot fan; but I do rather feel for him here (not half as much as I feel for Lord McAlpine, I hasten to add.) What Monbiot says is telling:

I felt a powerful compulsion to do what I have done throughout my career: to help the voiceless be heard. But in this case I did so without any of the care I usually take when assessing and reporting an issue. I allowed myself to be carried away by a sense of moral outrage. As a result, far from addressing an awful injustice, I contributed to one.

Note those phrases: “powerful compulsion”, “carried away”.

I think that we’re all at risk of behaving like George, and for two main reasons. For one thing, those of us who’ve been on the web for a while (and who can remember well-meaning attempts to create shared rules of ‘netiquette’) will recall that it’s shamefully easy to treat someone whose only existence in your subjective reality is as a string of bytes here and there on the web as though they’re not real people. My experience of libellous link-blogging has demonstrated to me how easy it is to make that mistake (but it’s a mistake that I’ve still made a number of times.)

But the other, more frightening reason is that we’re all capable of getting caught up in the fun of a witch hunt. We can all become part of a baying mob.

The scary thing is that it’s not even really a conscious decision; instead it’s the flip side of all those unconscious social drives that we’re trying to co-opt when we practice social media marketing.

What we can learn from the real evangelists?

This is a description of Billy Graham crusades from an academic study I’ve been reading. I’m interested in how real evangelists work (after all, I use the term often enough when talking to colleagues and clients):

Counselors begin their work after the singing, testimonials, collection and Billy Graham’s sermon, which culminates in the altar call. At the moment of Graham’s invitation to “come forward to Christ.” counselors and choir members begin moving forward to an area usually in front of the speaker’s platform or rostrum. To a naive member of the audience or a television viewer, this movement creates an illusion of a spontaneous and mass response to the invitation. Having been assigned seating in strategic areas of the auditorium or arena and given instructions on the staggered time-sequencing for coming forward, the counselors move forward in such a fashion so as to create the illusion of individuals “flowing” into the center of the arena from all quarters, in a steady outpouring of individual decision. Unless an outsider or observer of these events has been instructed to look for the name tags and ribbons worn by those moving forward it is all too easy to infer from these appearances the “charismatic” impact of Graham and his invitation. These strategies promote the respectability of making a public commitment and represent methods calculated to manipulate the consent of the passive, the uncertain, the wary, and the indecisive.

(from: David L. Altheide and John M. Johnson, Counting Souls: A Study of Counseling at Evangelical Crusades, The Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, (Jul., 1977), pp. 323-348)

Momentum

A recent (and criticised) study by Tubemogul on the short shelf life of online video reminded me of some research into views on YouTube videos I did back in 2006. I only looked at about 130 random YouTube videos for the first 20 days of their life cycle, while TubeMogul’s methodology was somewhat more sound (they tracked more than 10K videos for around three months, among other things.)

Here’s the chart from my analysis: Continue reading