The Low-Down on Online Identity Management

PsychCentral has made a bold prediction about the future of social media networks.  Because of "identity management,"  PsychCentral suggests that future generations will turn their attention towards messaging apps that will allow them to mass communicate with a limited number of individuals, such as close friends.  In turn, "big" social networks will suffer a loss.

Identity Management, put simply, is controlling how an individual presents themselves to people around them.  Online, identity management consists of filtering your thoughts and opinions to make sure they fit into the mold that you have shaped for yourself.  In other words, it is choosing what you want to share.  PsychCentral suggests that, with intimate social networks where you are connected with close individuals, identity management necessitates less time and effort- essentially, you can "be yourself." 

The study attributes its claims to the falling number of contributors on Facebook.  They assume, whenever networks encourage users to connect with people that they don't "really know," they share less.  This decline in posts or comments is said to stem from identity management.  We filter ourselves to please our followers.  Sometimes we walk on eggshells on social media in order to avoid offending someone.  I agree with this, at least in most cases- There are times when people purposely reveal their offensive opinions to prove a point or create a rise out of others.

I know from personal experience that I often find myself filtering what I decide to share with others.  I want to please my followers and friends, without making any offensive claims that will result in backlash.  (We all know what happened to PR Justine with her Africa and AIDS tweet).  Because of my desire to craft a creative tweet, post, blog, or even photo caption worthy of praise, I don't share everything that I want to.  This affects the quantity of my contributions.  

For example, my twitter feed yesterday was filled with posts about the sad lives of duke fans.  Each tweet sported the crafty hash tag "#dookfans," with witty evidence about why duke sucks.  I had to hop on the bandwagon, because this seemed like an easy way to claim my fifteen minutes of fame.  I thought about what I hated more than ANYTHING, and the answer was immediately clear.  I quickly tapped away the perfect tweet:

Just before I reached for the tweet button, I daydreamed of the record number of favorites and retweets that I would receive from this tweet.  Suddenly, I remembered the only reason why I care about the ugly shoes in the first place: They are all around me.  Here at UNC, when warm weather strikes, Chacos season begins. Even some of my best friends wear Chacos. They are aware of my opinion of their contribution to fashion suicide, but.. that does not mean that I need to compare them to duke fans or share my distaste so publicly.  I weighed the pros and cons of sharing the tweet, and decided against it.  

This is just one example of the thought process that may go through many users' heads before sharing their thoughts in a public forum.  But the key is that these networks are public.  Just as in any real public setting, it is normal to filter your thoughts before sharing them with others.  Ever heard the saying "think before you speak?" So, no, I do not believe that identity management will be the ultimate demise of large social networks.  On the contrary, I think identity management adds to their value.

The intent of these networks is to connect a large base of people publicly, and users typically know this when they sign on.  I think that the identity management behind social media contributions may decrease the quantity of potential posts, but it definitely increases the quality.  Identity Management saves us from an overwhelming number of annoyingly irrelevant or opinionated posts.  Although their presence is still known in the social media world, they occur much more infrequently than they potentially could. 

 In addition, without users sharing every idea that comes to their mind, offensive or not, a certain worth is added to the contributions that are offensive or extremely opinionated.  Whether you agree or disagree with the post, commentary that takes a stand on something controversial sparks interest in onlookers.  If we were constantly surrounded by these posts, we might become desensitized to some of the greatest social media speculations of our time. 

The Trouble with Twitter TV

"Only Twitter TV Can Save Twitter."  The headline popped up on my feedly, and as an avid tweeter and follower of many tweeters myself, I had to read it.  "Save Twitter?" I was confused from the get-go.  From my understanding, twitter was doing just fine.  In fact, from Ashley's post, I learned that Twitter has found new ways to monetize itself and increase its profits.

I continued to read the article and found that the main issue that twitter was facing was engaging new users and expanding their user base.  They had anticipated a 400 million user base by the end of 2013, but it ended the year with only 241 million.  So how do they fix the problem?  The author of the article suggests "Twitter TV."

Twitter TV would allow non-users to get a glimpse inside of Twitter.  The concept is best described by television: "When a premium channel on your cable network wants more subscribers, it typically runs a free weekend where every single cable subscriber can view the once-hidden channel. You get to see what they're offering, and some people subscribe as a result."  

Twitter TV would allow for interested individuals to view and subscribe to public tweets without an account.  They could filter through topics and view the latest tweets without being an actual user.  If they wanted to share a certain tweet or create their own content, they would then register for their own twitter account.

While at surface level this seems like an easy fix, I do not believe it would be an effective catalyst in increasing the number of users.  It will certainly draw more people to explore twitter, which may potentially sway them into creating twitter accounts, but I'd imagine that many users would simply check their public feed for the latest updates.  I think that if people want to create their own content or share other's content, they probably already have accounts and would see no need for this public resource.  

In addition, what I particularly like about twitter is the ability to personalize my own feed.  I get to choose what I want to see and when I want to see it.  I can connect with family, friends, businesses, and concepts that  I'm interested in.  I can see what my best friend had for dinner, what workout a fitness account recommends for the day, and what's the latest news update on CNN.  This intimate element of twitter is really what makes twitter different than other media tools.  Having a "public feed" would eliminate the personal component of the network and in my opinion, take away from twitter's main highlight. 

On the other hand, the public feed of Twitter TV may have potential as a news and advertising source.  This may be something to consider in expanding twitter's reach in the future.  However, this may be a flop with the uprise of other companies strategizing to incorporate news in their networks.  Could Twitter TV compete?    Facebook paper anyone?

Social Currency? - Marc Jacobs Pop-Up Shop

In Manhattan this morning, my favorite designer unleashed perhaps one of the best marketing strategies that I have seen in a while.  Marc Jacobs, a brand for women's, men's, and children's runway fashion, opened up the doors to a temporary "pop-up shop" in the Soho district of the city.  

Titled the "Daisy Marc Jacobs Tweet Shop," the store undertakes an interesting new spin on currency.  Instead of paying for the products with money, customers will receive products in exchange for tweets, instagram posts, and Facebook promotions. While I'd imagine that most of the products in the store are smaller, inexpensive Marc Jacobs items, the best instagram poster of the day receives a handbag...  If only I lived in Manhattan!  

I think that Marc Jacobs was brilliant in attempting such an endeavor.  Although they are giving away products virtually for free, the amount of free advertising they will receive in return will surely be exponentially larger than their losses.  In addition, the unique concept will draw curious shoppers into the store, further promoting their brand and expanding their potential customer base.

Another wise move of the company was to limit the event to only two days.  This short time-frame creates a sense of urgency in customers, which I think will also harbor excitement.  If the store were to remain open for a more extended period of time, the hype of the concept would surely die down after a few days.  The two day period, allows for not only a lot of advertisement via social media at once, but fosters competitions among customers.  With this competition, the social media promotions will be of higher quality in addition to higher quantity.  Who doesn't want to win a FREE Marc Jacobs handbag?!?

The concept of social currency seems a little far-fetched to me in everyday transactions.  However, used temporarily, social currency has the potential to become the "next big thing" in promotional events.  To receive the free products, customers will post about the brand on social media, and the brand will receive free advertisement.  Most likely, customers will be happy with their free product and will be even more inclined to promote the company further!  It's a win-win situation for everybody.  That's social media mutualism.

Check out the o.g. article that I read, here.

Making Connections

I was reading an article about the importance of forming connections, and ironically enough, it helped me form some interesting connections.  

The author of the article primarily discusses the difference between knowledge and experience.  She argues that experience helps us to make connections with information that we already know.  Without these connections, our knowledge has virtually no utility.  Making these connections fuels innovative and creative thought-processes. She argues that for an individual to be successful they must have the ability to make these connections.

One of my favorite quotes listed in the commentary was from Maria Popova who said, "in order for us to truly create and contribute to the world, we have to be able to connect countless dots, to cross-pollinate ideas from a wealth of disciplines, to combine and recombine these pieces and build new castles."

This got me thinking about a discussion that we had in class about the future of search engines and informational technology.  We briefly talked about the potential of one day having a computer chip inserted into our brains, enabling us to communicate (by thought) with a search engine.  This would ultimately enable us to have access to endless information.  Many rebuked this idea, claiming it would destroy educational systems and human careers.  They questioned how there would be fair competition in an application process or an academic exam if we had any information that we wanted right at our fingertips.. or our thoughts.

I disagreed and failed to speak up, but this article just reaffirmed the possible validity of my position.  I believe that, in modern society, an exam or job requires much more of an individual than just knowing certain info.  It requires analysis, inventiveness, vision, teamwork, and exploration.

My econ professor articulated my argument perfectly.  On the first day of my economics class this semester, my professor argued the importance of developing analytical thinking skills.  He told us that the face of the job market has completely changed, and there was no place for jobs that relied on rote memorization anymore.  Computers have far surpassed us in the ability to recall, and he insisted that in order to be successful, we had to truly learn to "think."

Professor Petranka's wise words helped me form my opposition in our discussion. Even if there was a magical computer chip that allowed us to know everything we wanted, the information we accessed would be completely pointless by itself.  I don't think this futuristic search engine would have such drastic implications for society.  In our day and age, being successful is often attributed to creation, and we can't create by simply searching for a fact or bit of info on google.

e-Mail Malfunction

While browsing news stories on the web, I've been noticing that several internet companies have had problems with e-mail outages.  About two weeks ago, Gmail had a "major" outage, when its services experienced a glitch.  The glitch caused many features of Google+, like Gmail, to become unavailable to about ten percent of users for 25-55 minutes.  After passively dissing gmail via twitter after the mishap, yahoo experienced a little karma with their own outage today around 1:25pm.  Their outage was shorter than google's.

Initially, I didn't think that either of the two incidents were worth discussion.  However, after investigating a little further, I was surprised to discover the backlash that the two companies received from its users on social media.  At first, I thought the complaints were a little ridiculous.  Who would seriously throw a fit about not being able to check their email for ONE HOUR? 

But... I thought about what if I had been one of the gmailers affected by the crash.  While most of my messages aren't urgent, I do find myself checking my e-mail at least twice in one hour, outside of class.  Just yesterday, I received an e-mail from my boss advising me to bring my lap top when I came to work.  The e-mail was sent about forty minutes before I was scheduled to work, and if my account had been down, I would have not been able to complete my tasks for the day.

So the point is..... We are reliant on our e-mail and, I believe, technology in general.  We need continuous access to this technology to get through daily obligations.  

This idea ties in closely with a discussion that we had in class last night.  Many people argued that they find themselves more content during experiences that lack the constant presence of technology.  While I personally agree with this statement, the times described without technology were usually in a vacation-like setting. When exploring the streets of Venice or camping in the middle of the woods, there is a separation from reality and the responsibilities that come with reality.  But what would life without your cell phone be like when your stuck in the middle of Chapel Hill on a college campus?

We inquired what would happen if we removed ourself from technology for moments at a time, like "walking back from class, without our phone in our hands."  It may seem plausible to conservatively cut-back on our time with technology, but I would have to agree with Patrick that removing it from our lives would be IMPOSSIBLE.

Reality demonstrates that as college students in America, we need technology to succeed.  It's nice to take time for ourselves by parting from our iPhones momentarily, but a few minutes may be all the time that we can realistically spare.  In the fast paced world that we live in, it is a necessity to stay up-to-date, connected, and in tune with everything that is going on throughout our campus, in our country, and even across the globe.

We can't afford to break away from technology.  Hell, we can barely afford for our e-mail to shut down for half an hour.

Missing the Moment

Yesterday I attended the UNC vs. State game, and I got to experience our well-deserved victory over the wolf pack.  The atmosphere in the dome was one for the books.  Students were cheering, chanting the familiar lyrics of the alma mater, and proudly waving their blown up posters of Mcadoo's head.  It was by far the best basketball game that I have attended this semester.

As I joined with the others in cheering our team to triumph though, I thought back to Claire's article about her experience at the concert.  I noticed some interesting parallels.  Fans all around me were constantly on their phones, watching the game through the screen of their camera.  With the hype of the crowd, I thought about how much more spirit there could have been if everyone put their phones down the entire game.

I have to admit that I am guilty of "missing the moment" as well.  Not only did I join in with FIVE other of my SnapChat friends in posting a story with a picture of the court and a caption displaying "Beat State," but I continuously checked my twitter newsfeed for hilarious rants from obnoxious state fans. At one point, I even FaceTimed my dad, so that he could see the dome for himself.

Bottom line: Technology has totally changed a student's experience of the game.  Although most of our phone activity was by personal choice, the advertisements on the screens even encouraged the use of our cell phones.  Among the possible phone interactions were participating in a text poll for what action shot you wanted to see at half time and tweeting a picture of yourself with the hashtag "#gotblueunc" to be displayed on the Jumbotron. 

Even if we had gotten so caught up in the game that we forgot about our phones for just a minute, we were quickly reminded by a new poll, or game, or advertisement on the huge screen above our heads. While many believe that technology enhances our experiences, I think that it causes us to not truly live in the moment.  I think that being present in the actual experience is much more important than the awesome tweet that caused you to miss the biggest three-pointer of the game.

Operation Frustration : Flappy Bird

If you haven't heard of the frustration surrounding the new game that is dominating the app world, then you probably don't have a social media account.  "Flappy Bird" had been popping up all over my twitter feed. Usually the tweets were along the lines of "IMPOSSIBLE" or "save yourself before it's too late #flappybird."  With all these warnings about the unachievable feat of beating one level, there was only one thing I could do: download Flappy Bird...

I joined the frustration bandwagon, and never have I ever been so frustrated.  The game seems simple with its old-school graphics and easy rules.  WRONG. You have to navigate a bird through small spaces by tapping it to keep it in the air.  I am so bad at this game that I haven't even made it through one space.  I have been consistent in achieving a score of zero, every. single. time.

So what makes this pointless game so popular and addicting?  This article asked just that. The creator accredits its fame to luck, but I am not convinced.  While I believe most of its popularity is from word of mouth, the extent of its reach wouldn't even be half as far without social media.  My own experience is the perfect example.  As an infrequent visitor to the app store, I probably wouldn't have known what Flappy Bird was without twitter.

In addition, I think its claim to fame is largely a result of human competitive nature.  For instance, after reading so many reviews of others who had continuously failed miserably in the game, I was determined to accomplish the impossible.  Unfortunately, I failed just as the others before me.

While the game definitely has the addictive factor,  I think its simplicity will cause its popularity to be short-lived.  Its interesting to note that a brainless game like "flappy bird" is currently first place in a world of extravagant apps and complex amusements.  But.. I'm not sure how long such a mundane pastime can capture our attention.