Archive for the ‘trends’ Category

Are Media Channels Diverging Or Converging?

Are media channels fragmenting? While looking over the new Vancouver Sun website recently (congratulations again on the redesign to Kirk Lapointe and his team), a blog post by Pamela Fayerman on the Sun’s Medicine Matters blog caught my eye.

Fayerman’s post, entitled Health and medical blogs; what interests you?, offers a couple of interesting thoughts on the changing nature of journalism:

We know that print stories are just a stop along the information highway for readers, not their final destination. Tom Rosenstiel, an author and director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, says reporters are like hunters/gatherers of information. Our role, on the digital side, is to do the aggregation work so that readers can use links where they can go to learn more.

Meanwhile, on my way home from work yesterday, I listened to the latest Media Bullseye Radio podcast with Ike Pigott. The panel featured a lively discussion about the role, nature and future of mainstream media and how it will influence social media (and vice versa) as different media channels converge.

There’s an interesting trend in these two pieces – they both talk about the different media coming together:

  • Fayerman’s piece mentions media as aggregators (a role frequently played by bloggers)
  • The Custom Scoop team talked about convergence between the different forms of media.

Over the last couple of years I’ve observed lots of discussions about the way that conversations are fragmenting. I’ve bemoaned this trend with social media tools as they take up ever-increasing amounts of time just to stay involved with the diverse channels.

I found it interesting that on one day I came across two mentions, on both sides of the old/new media divide, that mentioned a similar trend.

What do you think? Are channels fragmenting or converging?

Update: Ike offered a useful summary of his key points around convergence in the comments:

  • “Print, radio and television news outlets aren’t really all that different when you look at their web components.
  • The fear among all forms of media about “scooping yourself on your own website” is gone. Getting news on your site first does indeed count as “getting it on the record.”
  • The typical silos that media relations people used to consider are gone. If you’ve got some relevant b-roll for your event or news release, you stand a better chance of getting it on the newspaper’s website than you do of the TV stations pulling from it.
  • Eventually, those outlets that are still competitive now will continue with web as the primary means of distribution, but with legacy branding from when they were primarily pulp or broadcast.”

Forrester’s New Technographics Data – How Do Canadians Measure Up?

Forrester recently released an updated set of data for their very useful technographics profile tool.

What’s a technographics profile?

Forrester’s tool divides consumers into six groups along a “technographics ladder.”

The tool is based on consumers’ social behaviours and on techniques detailed in Josh Bernoff and Charlene Li‘s book Groundswell (which I have not yet read, but plan to shortly).

The six groups are:

What’s the news here?

As Bernoff put it in a post on the new technographics data yesterday:

“…the big news in 2008 is that, not unexpectedly, social technology participation has grown rapidly.”

 

Critically, the proportion of people who are “inactive” is down from 44 per cent to 25 per cent. Just a quarter of US online adults are not engaged in social media in any way. Almost seventy per cent of online Americans now at least read, listen or watch some form of social media.

Enter the Canadians

Interestingly to those of us north of the border, Canadians are now featured, for the first time, in Forrester’s tool. Canadians are generally thought of as web-savvy, with high connectivity (according to the federal government, 73% of all Canadians use the Internet now) and high engagement (Canada is known as a leader in terms of Facebook use, for example).

So, how does Canada measure up against other countries in this new data? You may be surprised – this data is pretty controversial.

Let’s look at the groups one by one.

creators

Creators are the people churning out the content – bloggers; podcasters; artists.

Surprisingly, according to Forrester’s data Canada is far from a leader in the creator category. Just 13 per cent of Canada’s online adults fall into this category, compared to 21 per cent in the US, 40 per cent in China and a whopping 51 per cent in South Korea.

critics

While ‘critics’ don’t necessarily contribute their own content, they do contribute their thoughts and opinions on other peoples’ content. They’re the blog commenters, the podcast callers-in, the wiki editors.

Canada is actually at the bottom of the pile of critics according to this new data. Only Germany is close to being as low.

collectors

Canada fares a little better in terms of collectors – the people who, while they may not contribute directly, actively save, bookmark, tag, vote and otherwise store/arrange online content. Canadians are middle-of-the-road here according to Forrester.

joiners

With Canada’s reputation in the social networking arena (especially with Facebook), you would expect that there would be a lot of joiners here. For the first time so far, this is the case. Canada ranks third in this category, behind only South Korea and Australia.

spectators 

Canadians are once again near the bottom of the pack in terms of people who passively consume online media. Only Germany ranks lower in this data.

inactives

You probably know what to expect by this point: online Canadian consumers sit close to the head of the pack in terms of consumers who are inactive in social media.

Notes of caution

Three things here set-off my “don’t jump to conclusions” alarm:

  1. The survey looks only at online consumers;
  2. We don’t know the methodology;
  3. This flies in the face of other research out there.

Online consumers only

From what I can tell, this data only looks at the breakdown of online consumers. It does not, I believe, consider those people who are not online.

While this makes sense as we’re looking at peoples’ behaviours online, it does not consider the proportion of the total population that these consumers make up. Canada is highly connected, while others may have a much lower percentage of their population online.

For this reason, Canada may be short-changed somewhat in this analysis if you look at the broader populations of each country.

We don’t know the methodology

To be more accurate, I don’t have the $995 needed to buy the complete Forrester report detailing the methodology for this study. That’s not Forrester’s problem – it’s mine – but it sows the seed of doubt in my mind over the methodology behind the study and whether it is consistent with that used in the other countries listed.

What about the other research?

As Ed Lee and Sean Moffitt (among others, I’m sure) have pointed out, there’s a host of other pieces of research out there that suggest Canadians are far more engaged in social media than this data indicates.

Back in June, in fact, Ed highlighted comScore research showing that more than 84 per cent of Canadians are active on social networks and that 89 per cent of Canadians watched online video. These numbers seem a bit extreme on the other side to me, but it goes to show that there are lots of different data sets out there.

These three factors may go some way to explaining the difference between the picture of Canadians painted by this data (below) and what I expected to see.

canada

Furthermore, this is raw data that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Personally, I’m taking this new data with a pinch of salt until I have more information.

What’s your take on this?

(Image credit for the first two images: Josh Bernoff. All remaining charts created by me, based on Forrester data.)

What Does The Agency Of The Future Look Like To You?

Sapient, a business consulting and interactive services firm, recently released the results of a US-wide survey that asked corporate Chief Marketing Officers what they wanted from their advertising and marketing agencies over the next year.

Here are the top ten results:

  1. Greater knowledge of the digital space.
  2. More use of "pull interactions."
  3. Leverage virtual communities.
  4. Agency executives using the technology they are recommending.
  5. Chief Digital Officers make agencies more appealing.
  6. Web 2.0 and social media savvy.
  7. Agencies that understand consumer behaviour.
  8. Demonstrate strategic thinking.
  9. Branding and creative capabilities.
  10. Ability to measure success.

Want to read up on a few of these themes?

Check out these posts:

Corporate marketers and communicators: does this list match what you’re looking for? What’s missing from the list for you?

(Hat tip to Michael Seaton for drawing my attention to this release).

How Might Friedman’s Flat World Affect The Public Relations Industry?

The World Is FlatI recently finished Thomas Friedman’s best-selling book The World Is Flat. In one chapter, Friedman suggests that as globalization continues, jobs will migrate from Western countries to developing countries. For example, many American accountants already outsource their work to Indian firms.

Friedman suggests that for many, the only way to prevent this will be for people to become “untouchables” — people whose jobs are not at risk of being outsourced in the near term. He suggests several types of untouchables:

  1. Special workers – workers whose extraordinary skill and talent make them irreplaceable
  2. Specialized workers – those with specialized knowledge
  3. Anchored workers – those whose physical location is important
  4. Really adaptable workers – those who continually evolve

Friedman views this as part of an ongoing and largely positive process of globalization (consistent with his approach in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, an earlier best-seller of his). Many people disagree, saying that rather than a positive trend it is just multinational companies taking advantage of cheap labour sources overseas. However, regardless of your personal view of how desirable this is, it’s difficult to argue that it’s happening.

This got me to wondering: How might Thomas Friedman’s affect the public relations industry? How can we become untouchable, and which parts of our industry might be outsourced?

The Untouchables

The Untouchables Looking at the four types of untouchables that Friedman suggests, most protection for PR professionals is likely to come from numbers three and four — anchored and really adaptable.

Only a few people will ever succeed in becoming a ‘special’ worker and many skills within the profession can be replicated with comprehensive training.

However, PR pros do have two opportunities:

Anchoring

A great deal of our usefulness comes from local knowledge, whether it’s cultural, environmental (political, media landscape etc) or relationship-based.

I think it would be very hard and not that feasible to replicate the knowledge needed to develop a practical, relevant communications strategy from thousands of miles away, or to replicate the relationships involved in government relations.

Along the same lines, event planning is unlikely to move overseas. While it’s certainly possible to develop an event plan and make arrangements from afar, the site visit plays an important role in the planning process. This might be somewhat mitigated by the potential to view photographs of a venue, but someone still has to take those.

Really Adaptable

The field of communications is growing rapidly. By that I mean that, while traditional approaches are still critically important, the field is rapidly expanding into non-traditional online approaches. Staying on the forefront of these changes raises the chance of you making yourself untouchable.

    At Risk?

    It does occur to me, though, that some parts of the communications field do have the potential to be outsourced. That doesn’t mean this will happen, that I would like it to happen or that people couldn’t make themselves untouchable, of course, but it made me stop and think:

    Writing

    Given the prevalence of English as the language of business, it’s perfectly possible that writing jobs could move overseas. Given the right background information, people could certainly write news releases, correspondence and speeches (to an extent) from across the pond.

    Web development

    Web development is a highly skilled occupation, for sure (as is writing in the last example). However, we’ve already seen the Indian software development industry boom. Why not web development?

    Media monitoring

    I don’t think all media monitoring could move overseas (good luck finding the Peterborough Examiner in India), but monitoring of online sources and major newspapers, TV channels, etc., could.

    As the link in the last paragraph showed, though, most local outlets publish online now. Overseas workers could flag when local outlets publish stories online so local PR pros could check out the hard copies, where story placement is still important.

    Proofreading and editing

    As with writing, while this is skilled work, I could see proofreading and editing moving overseas.

      These are just my thoughts on the implications of Friedman’s book. Am I on the mark? Might we see some of these tasks be outsourced in the next few years and might any others move? How else could we future-proof ourselves against this?

      Newspapers: A Growth Business?

      Newspaper I just stumbled across an news release from last month entitled World Press Trends: Newspapers Are A Growth Business. With a headline like that, you bet I read it!

      According to the World Association of Newspapers, newspaper circulations world-wide rose 2.57% in 2007 and 9.39% over the last five years. The source of this data, the association’s annual survey of World Press Trends, was released this June.

      This stands in stark contrast to the state of the press in North America, where leading publications like the Toronto Star and the New York Times have resorted to significant layoffs in recent months. As a sign of where the association’s bias lies, the release tries to position that positively too:

      “”And even in places where paid-for circulation is declining, notably the United States and some countries in western Europe, newspapers continue to extend their reach through a wide variety of free and niche publications and through their rapidly developing multi-media platforms,” he [Timothy Balding, Chief Executive Officer of the World Association of Newspapers] said.”

      Some other interesting nuggets from the lengthy release, which provide a useful reminder that the newspaper industry is much bigger than the US and Canada:

      • Daily newspaper circulations were stable or up in 80% of the countries surveyed in 2007
      • 74 of the world’s 100 best selling dailies are published in Asia
      • The largest markets for paid dailies are China (107 million copies), India (99 million copies) and Japan (68 million copies). US circulation is about 51 million copies – 17 million lower than Japan

      The release does acknowledge some of the problems the industry is facing, however:

      • Paid daily circulation in the EU dropped 2.37% in 2007. However, if you factor in the free dailies, circulation rose 2%
      • Most of the US decline came at the expense of evening papers, with a 10.08% drop compared to 2006 and a 25% drop over the last five years.

      Of course, the World Association of Newspapers is far from unbiased. Among the association’s activities, it “represents the newspaper industry in all international discussions on media issues, to defend both press freedom and the professional and business interests of the press.”

      I take these findings with a sizeable pinch of salt. Still, this remains an interesting reminder that even with the frequent reports of the decline of the traditional media in the western world, it isn’t the case everywhere.

      (Image credit: somadjinn)

      Early Adopters

      A useful reminder from Sylvain Grand’maison’s presentation at Podcasters Across Borders – right now, we’re all early social media adopters.

      Early Adopters

      While the increasing mainstream coverage of tools like Facebook and MySpace may be a sign that we’re moving beyond the introduction stage and into the growth stage of social media tools, from my perspective we’re still at a point in social media when everyone is learning. That’s especially true in public relations. PR has been around for a long time; social media has been around for just a few years.  I think we’re early in the lifecycle.

      We have a bunch of new tools to experiment with; I think it’s up to us – the early adopters – to work out which ones are useful and how to use them.

      What do you think?

      Did Facebook Traffic Outgrow MySpace Last Year?

      The web has been buzzing over the last few days about Facebook passing MySpace in worldwide traffic recently after the release of new Comscore figures, but did Facebook pass MySpace a while ago?

      Google just announced Google Trends for Websites – a new feature of Google Trends that, rather than just looking at search trends, lets you view visitor trends for your favourite websites.

      Here’s what the new service shows for Facebook.com and MySpace.com

      Facebook v MySpace

      (Source: Google Trends for Websites)

      According to this chart, Facebook passed MySpace for unique visitors in November 2007.

      This raises an interesting question – which of these services should we trust? What’s the difference between comScore, Google Trends, Alexa and Compete? How accurate are they?

      FriendFeed Isn’t The Next Google – It’s Just The Next… FriendFeed

      Steve Rubel says FriendFeed could be the next Google. I think he might want to step outside his bubble and reconsider.

      Wait – what’s FriendFeed?

       FriendFeed That question, right there, my friends, is why I think Mr. Rubel is wrong. First, though, a little on FriendFeed in case you don’t know much about it.

      FriendFeed is a “lifestreaming” service – a tool that aggregates what you’re doing online. If you write a blog, share photos through Flickr, post updates on Twitter and vote for things you like on digg, FriendFeed lets you pull all of that into one place – into a ‘stream’ of information. FriendFeed also lets you subscribe to other peoples’ lifestreams, letting you you stay up-to-date with what your friends are doing online.

      Layered on top of that, FriendFeed allows you to show which posts in other people’s streams you like and to comment on them. It also lets you post messages directly to the service.

      So what does Rubel think?

      Essentially, Steve Rubel argues that FriendFeed is turning into a personalized, recommendation-based search engine for him. He bases it on three trends:

      • The rising influence of peers (see my post on Edelman’s Trust Barometer for details on that)
      • 90% of the online population conducts searches online
      • Young people are happy to post their lives online

      I’ve probably over-simplified here, but that’s the gist.

      Bursting the bubble

      Bubble The problem with Rubel’s idea is scale. FriendFeed is small – Rubel acknowledges as much, noting that it has just 300,000 active users right now.

      The difference between our opinions is that Rubel thinks that FriendFeed could become as big as Google, whereas I think it’s for those firmly within the social media bubble. It’s neat, but it’s a shiny object and the main people who seem to be getting a lot of value from it seem to be the A-listers with huge lists of contacts. That doesn’t make it a game-changer.

      To make a “lifestream” worthwhile, you need to use several other services. It has an additional barrier over other web 2.0 sites – you need to use other services, and heavily, before FriendFeed gains value.I do; Rubel does; most people don’t.

      If you’re not in the bubble, or on the leading edge of the “Millennials,” you (a) wouldn’t even see a need to pull this stuff together and (b) wouldn’t get any value out of it anyway.

      What’s more, other tools have provided this functionality for a long time.

      Google Reader long ago became my number two search engine for new media stuff – it lets me search trusted sources for information. What’s more, you don’t need the people you trust to use Google Reader for it to work. With FriendFeed you do (ok, you can get around that, but only über-geeks would even think of doing that).

      Similarly, del.icio.us lets you search through the sites other people have bookmarked. Again, it has fewer barriers than FriendFeed – people just need to use del.icio.us, not a bunch of sites, for it to be useful to them. You don’t even need to sign up for del.icio.us yourself to search it.

      Maybe things are moving in this direction. Who knows, maybe Google, Mahalo, etc will move to a more recommendation-based system. I just don’t see FriendFeed as part of that outside the bubble.

      FriendFeed is a good service, for its market. However, it’s not the next Google. It’s just the next… FriendFeed.

      What do you think?

      (Don’t get me wrong here – while I’ve never met Rubel, I have a lot of respect for him. I read his stuff on a bunch of channels (including FriendFeed). I just think he’s off base with this one.)

      (Photo credits: cambodia4kidsorg, tarotastic)

      Reality Check On Twitter

      TwitterIt’s time to stand up and call "bullshit" on people who say Twitter is replacing blogs.

      Don’t get me wrong – I love Twitter. I use it more than any other social media tool, I have a lot of connections on there and I get a lot out of it. But it’s not replacing blogs (not yet, anyway).

      Time to break out of the bubble, people. Let’s look at this with a bit more perspective.

      Sure, many of us in the social media circle use Twitter to fire off quick messages that may remove our perceived need to blog about those topics. We’re in a tiny minority though. The vast majority of people online haven’t even heard of Twitter.

      What’s more (let’s be honest) we self-censor a lot less on Twitter than we do on our blogs. That’s not a negative – Twitter’s format lets us share links and thoughts much more easily than blogs do. Still, that means I post links and thoughts on Twitter that I wouldn’t write about here.

      Blogs have a massive number of participants, both in terms of owners and readers. I’m talking tens of millions of sites. Despite that, most people don’t even trust blogs yet. To them, blogs are still an emerging technology. Meanwhile, Twitter currently has around 940,000 users in total and many of those accounts are dormant.

      Jeremy Pepper wrote a great post about some of the other topics that caused ripples in the social media community this week. He sums it up well:

      If we continue to live in our social media worlds, we might be leading in some technology way, but we are also in danger of missing what is happening in the rest of the world – the real world – that might have more of an affect on our products, our clients, our jobs than we want to admit.

      We’re way ahead of the curve here, and we need to remember that. Just because we’ve found a shiny new tool that works for us, it doesn’t mean the average person in the street is doing the same thing.

      Ten things that will change your future… And The Trends Within

      As I twittered a few days back, the Sydney Morning Herald recently published an article titled "Ten things that will change your future," looking at "what you need to know to survive the next decade."

      The list

      1. The Chumby (http://www.chumby.com)
      2. Microblogging (http://www.pownce.com; http://www.jaiku.com; http://twitter.com)
      3. Everyblock (http://www.chicagocrime.org; http://www.everyblock.com)
      4. 23AndMe (http://www.23andme.com)
      5. Peer-To-Peer Lending (http://www.kiva.org)
      6. Mob Rules (http://www.rheingold.com)
      7. Guerilla Wi-Fi (http://www.meraki.com)
      8. World Community Grid (http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org)
      9. Loopt (http://www.loopt.com)
      10. One Laptop Per Child (http://www.laptop.org)

      Three themes run through this list:

      Open

      From devices like the Chumby that are designed to be hacked, to sites like Everyblock that pull information from a multitude of sources, several items on the list involve openness and collaboration.

      Community

      Peer-to-peer lending sites bring people together to help the working poor build their businesses. Guerilla wi-fi brings people together to provide cheap wireless internet access. One Laptop Per Child’s "Give One Get One" promotion lets people receive a laptop in exchange for donating one.

      Most of the items on the list involve achieving outcomes through a community.

      Micro

      Microblogging sites allow users to send short messages to each other. Peer-to-peer lending functions primarily through micro-loans. Everyblock works at a hyper-local level.

      Many of these things involve tiny actions on a large scale.

      ——-

      Will these things define the next decade? I’m not sure.

      I agree with the mobile focus and I’m glad the list includes a couple of items related to reducing poverty, but I don’t see anything on the list that leverages them for some other really pressing issues – environmental causes, for example.

      What technological trends do you see defining the next decade?

      Technorati Tags: ,,,