Powell Tate is a division of Weber Shandwick, a sponsor of Social Media Week. We'll be sharing some insights from the conference here on this blog.
We hear a lot about social networks dominating the Internet landscape. And indeed they do – Facebook alone is nearing 600 million users, half of whom access the site every day.
But where does that leave the rest of the Web? Is there room for sites offering original content? News and information? Gaming? Commerce?
If social network sites account for 35 percent of total Internet traffic, which is a stat cited several times here at Social Media Week, then the “rest of the Web” accounts for about 65 percent of total traffic.
Speaking to a Social Media Week crowd, Meebo’s Martin Green advised organizations to build deeper relationships with their advocates and website visitors. For example, Pandora and Netflix tailor their experiences to each user. "Pandora knows more about your music preferences than your friends do,” Green pointed out. “What if browsing the Web was like that?"
Watch the rest of Green's speech here:
Late last year, our team partnered with KRC Research to interview more than 200 top executives at Fortune 2000 companies who have responsibility for philanthropic, social responsibility or community outreach. For more than a year, we’ve been fortunate to see the powerful impact of crowdsourcing in CSR through our work with Pepsi on the Pepsi Refresh Project.
With this survey, we wanted to understand new developments in the CSR sector, in particular, the role of crowdsourcing and social media in raising awareness and driving engagement. Here’s what we learned.
Forty-four percent of executives we surveyed say they have used crowdsourcing – asking customers to provide ideas and help in decision-making. Among those executives, an overwhelming 95 percent reported that it was valuable to their organization’s CSR programming.
When asked why crowdsourcing is so valuable for CSR, executives said it:
- Surfaces new perspectives and diverse opinions (36%)
- Builds engagement and relationships with key audiences (25%)
- Invites clients and customers from nontraditional sources to contribute ideas and opinions (22%)
- Brings new energy into the process of generating ideas and content (16%)
The fact sheet and PowerPoint below summarize a number of additional findings, including perspective on crowdsourcing from executives who haven’t used it, and several findings on the role of social media (including specific channels such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn) in raising awareness and driving engagement for CSR.
We’re going to be talking on our blog about the implications of these findings and any questions they may prompt. We’d welcome your questions or comments.
When the Internet was shut down in Egypt late on Jan. 28, it was a reminder that while social media can be a powerful force for mobilizing groups and spurring political engagement in otherwise repressive regimes, governments ultimately control the master switch. To many, it was a pertinent example of the limitations of social media as a meaningful tool for political change.
This wasn’t the first time the Internet was shut down for an entire nation in light of political unrest. The same happened in Nepal in 2005 and in Burma in 2007. The Egyptian incident likely won’t be the last case.
And yet, in the two days following the net black out, media attention around what was going on inside Egypt only grew stronger. Protests continued and Egyptians turned to a range of basic communication platforms such as ham radios with Morse code messages and dial-up modems in order to communicate with each other and the world.
Free-speech groups like Telecomix and other vested individuals decoded those messages in order to share the stories over the Web and help keep media focus on Egypt. Turns out those attempts to censor the protests by the Egyptian government (as well as in Nepal, Burma, and Iran) were somewhat futile.
From a communications perspective, we were also reminded that what makes media social is not the high-tech aspect, but the human capacity to share. The Internet went down and the protests continued. It isn’t how they share information that matters – just that they do.
David I. Leavitt
There’s no question that the new Republican majority in the House will mean big changes in the congressional agenda.
But one change has very little to do with politics: for the first time, the rules allow members of Congress to use electronic devices such as iPhones, Blackberrys and iPads on the House floor.
Wasting no time, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) live-tweeted events from the House floor on the opening day of the session. Her dispatches included photos, such as this one celebrating the occasion of Nancy Pelosi handing the speaker’s gavel to John Boehner.
The new policy prohibits only devices that “impair decorum” — a subjective distinction, to be sure.
It’s important for our lawmakers to be fluent in ubiquitous technology that the rest of the nation uses, both to stay on top of how the world works and to take advantage of the best communication technologies available.
Change happens slowly in our government. Until President Obama asked for a special security-enabled Blackberry, our presidents didn’t use email due to advice from White House attorneys.
In my view, it was a shame that George W. Bush did not use email while he was president. He clearly understood the importance of email in everyday life and commerce. As reported by the Weekly Standard, he had regularly used email before moving into the White House, saying: "There's no better way to communicate."
If there is no better way to communicate, then we did our nation a disservice by providing a disincentive for our presidents to use the best communications technologies available. I feel the same way when it comes to electronic devices on the floor of the House.
In 2011, when someone cites a fact or figure that we doubt, we instantly look it up online to make sure it’s accurate. Why should members of Congress — who are involved in important discussions in which it’s vital to get the facts right — be at a disadvantage?
Yes, it’s possible that some members will occasionally take advantage of this rule to conduct unofficial business on the floor of the House. There may be times when someone checks the score of a baseball game instead of paying attention to the debate.
However, the absence of electronic devices does not mean there aren’t members thinking about baseball when they’re on the House floor.
And besides, the upside of the new rule is far more important. As House Republican transition office spokesman Brendan Buck told the National Journal: "Prohibiting the use of all electronic devices on the House floor is an obstacle to efficiency.”
(Photo from Flickr user Joi.)
Executive Vice President and Senior Global Corporate Strategist
Senior Vice President
Chief Communications Strategist
- May | 13
- Apr | 13
- Mar | 13
- Feb | 13
- Dec | 12
- Nov | 12
- Oct | 12
- Sep | 12
- Aug | 12
- Jul | 12
- Jun | 12
- May | 12
- Apr | 12
- Mar | 12
- Feb | 12
- Jan | 12
- Dec | 11
- Nov | 11
- Oct | 11
- Sep | 11
- Aug | 11
- Jul | 11
- Jun | 11
- May | 11
- Apr | 11
- Mar | 11
- Feb | 11
- Jan | 11
- Dec | 10
- Nov | 10
- Oct | 10
- Sep | 10
- Aug | 10
- Jul | 10
- Jun | 10
- May | 10
- Apr | 10