Meeting with Philippa went well today. New problem – What are industry expectations of students’ Web2.0 capabilities?
There seems to be resistance from students into learning about these new platforms, but industry expects students to have these abilities and be able to adapt as new technologies are developed.
Now – thesis or project?
New aim for lit review? Focus on Web2.0 still (phewf), but also a section on industry.
We’re often taught in public relations that transparency and openness are key factors in maintaining a good reputation. It seems now, with the increasing prevalance of social networking sites and the like, that this is more important than ever. But how can an organisation really be transparent? Is there an art in faking it? Or do companies really just need to deal with the fact that they the internet can expose them more than ever before? This seems to be a key concept that is coming up in my lit review research.
The Cluetrain Manifesto focuses largely on a shift from marketing speak to having real conversations with people about things they actually care about. In an open space such as the internet, companies need to address real issues with real voices, as TechnoLatin (as they refer to it) will be seen straight through. Now more than ever, organisations need to focus on relationships, not messages. However they seem to miss a point of public relations here – a key message is more than just a well-crafted sentence, it should be adaptable to conversations. A key message is a concept that can be incorporated through different forms of communications to make not only state the organisations view point, but also make sure the whole team is on the same track.
Jeff Jarvis makes an interesting point in his article Openness and the Internet regarding a similar point.
“The key to Facebook’s growth, I think, is that it moves past the tiresome fad of anonymity online to help us establish real identities and organize real relationships.”
Again, people want real people and real relationships. They don’t want a company slogan and tagline or official spokesperson, they want connectivity. They want to feel important as an individual. Organisations need to act on this.
I think it was Jonothan who discussed in class that the emphasis in media is no longer on creating content for things that already exist, but in creating new media itself. For example, the money isn’t in using Twitter, it’s in creating it.
Here’s the latest in internet technologies –> Wolfram|Alpha.
It’s only been around a week or so and I’m sure it will advance further (if it’s taken up that is) but Wolfram Alpha’s “long-term goal is to make all systematic knowledge immediately computable and accessible to everyone” according to the site. You can type in any kind of question or calculation and it will pump you out an answer. Not only this but you can enter dates to see exactly how long you’ve been alive (at least that’s what I did!) and cities to gain general facts such as weather, population etc about them (apparently not my home town though). So is this the next big thing? I guess only time will tell.
The Gruen transfer seems to be taking off. First it was just my mum that would ask ‘did you see the Gruen factor last night?’, I would reply ‘you mean the Gruen Transfer? No i missed it.’ Now it seems every second person is watching it and the Age is reporting on it. Here’s a bit of controversy that they only showed online after several thorough warnings of it’s content – The Foundry’s Anti-discrimination Ad
I don’t think this ad would work on television for reasons outlined by the panel (large portions of the general public would not be educated enough to get the real meaning, others may be too shocked by the first comments to make it to the real point) but to be honest I’m disappointed they didn’t show the ad and the discussion on their show. It’s controversial, but it’s worth watching, it’s worth thinking about. Maybe putting it on the website is just a form of underground promotion for the show? What do you think?