Social Media: The Emperor Has No Clothes

[jas2525]

I heard an interview by Ed Schultz yesterday, with the keenly articulate, always classy and oft funny man-of-the-hyphen, Holland Cooke.

As usual, Holland was singing the praises of, and warning of the dangers of ignoring, social media.

It often drives me nuts when I hear what is akin to the latest-gadget being touted as the be-all end-all, something you have GOT to have if you are to be acknowledged by anybody! It's so....junior high.

Ed and Holland were talking, IIRC, about CNN scrolling tweets or something across the bottom of the screen. Holland stated that "they're going to have the conversation with or without you" or something like that.

No they're not. People who have the capacity to tweet, may tweet a response to what they're watching if given the chance to do that. So what? It's nothing more than a distraction from the focus of the broadcast. If you didn't give people the chance to tweet to CNN, you really think they're instead going to go rustle up a good ol' fashioned political argument with their friends on twitter? So they can trade 140 characters at a time? Nice conversation.

In reality, the overwhelming majority of social media users are talking about nonsense: just disjointed, incongruent, A.D.D. style comments that are as conducive to a "conversation" as a blaring car horn.

When I see a scroll of tweets across the bottom of the screen...or in that same vein, literally 10,000 comments under a Yahoo News story, I think to myself "people are more into typing a message than reading all the responses". This is mainly due to a lack of time and an abundance of ego. On a related note, I guarantee that there are many more blogs written than read.

How does this relate to radio, you ask? Well, too many people are desperately trying to redirect way too much attention and energy toward social media. The *advantage* to social media is supposed to be the one-on-one connection. The problem is, when you're dealing with a mass audience, one cannot possibly maintain a one-on-one relationship with tens of thousands of listeners. All it becomes is the same top-down arrangement that Mr. Cooke says is passé now.

And I honestly don't know anyone who is on the edge of their seat waiting for their favorite host to read the next tweet or facebook entry from a listener.

Social media has it's place. I just wish the traditional media would stop tripping all over itself to kiss social media's arse.

 

[landtuna]

For a radio or TV host to direct me to Facebook or one of the other social sites to complete a story is to force me to go elsewhere for my news and entertainment. It is akin to providing a short story on the 5 o'clock news then tell me to wait until 10PM for the rest of the story. Ain't gonna happen. Any station doing that loses me instantly as a viewer/listener. I despise teasers!!!

As a long-time IT professional I did my turn at the social media when it appeared. It allowed me to re-connect with people I hadn't seen or heard from since high school and even before. It is an easy way to broadcast messages to your social groups (assuming you have them). But it got old and stale very quickly and the background noise of uninteresting blabber wore me down. I bailed.

So, like radio and TV, any site that pushes me toward Facebook or other social media to comment, read, compare or investigate is immediately ignored. I guess if you positively, absolutely need to know the up-to-the-minute status of the Kardashian sisters it is useful. For me, not so much. Not at all.

 

[wadio]

Amen to both of these excellent posts! I've posted similar thoughts on other message boards only to be instantly told, "you're wrong!" But if I'm an advertiser, how can I be happy when -- just before my spot is about to run -- the audience is told to go away! It makes no sense. FOCUS, people. There are enough distractions competing for the audiences attention -- why create even more?

 

[OldNumber7]

Yes! This thread is on the money. I'm reminded of th 90s when MTV and others put chat room conversations about the program on the lower third of the screen. That was supposed to be the next big thing, but it got old very quickly. I have no interest in what my fellow media users are saying on Twitter about what's on the radio/tv, just as I have no interest in Man On the Streets on the news and no interest in what other people are requesting on Saturday night request shows. Now that the social media universe has grown too big for media personalities to interract with me, the individual, it will fade as a media promotion tool (just as chat rooms and email did).

 

[radioom]

I agree with all of the above. Its a fad that may last long with the young people, but for radio it isn't as crucial as everyone makes it out to be. And you hit it on the head....never tell your audience to leave the radio to "follow us" or even post for that matter. What ever happend to "Keep staying tuned in...."?

CNN does the trick of having viewers post answers to their questions with a tease that they will read the response on air, but the average person will go to their computer and move on to something else.

Stations should have a social media presence...but a presence, that's all.

 

[imhomerjay]

1985 called and said it's time for you to come home. ;D

 

[wadio]

1985 revenues would be a good thing!

 

[borderblaster]

While you're at it, why not take the station website down too.

 

[TheBigA]

Social media has it's place. I just wish the traditional media would stop tripping all over itself to kiss social media's arse.

You sound like a boomer. In the old days, one way media was fine. People sat around the radio and listened. That's not the way it works. Listeners want to interact and give their opinions. Using traditional radio tools, like taking phone calls, puts the power in the hands of call screeners. But even then, if you're willing to interact using the phone, what's the problem with social media?

The point of radio is engaging the listener. The best way to do that is to go to them. Not sit in an ivory tower. The reality is that the callers generally don't have anything earth shattering to say. You take calls to engage and involve the audience, and make them feel a part of the show. But the actual content of the calls aren't always worth putting on the air, giving them credibility, and potentially annoying other listeners. So you keep that whole conversation off the air on a platform that won't hurt your ratings, namely social media. Then if something great happens there, you put it on the air. Similar to call screening. But the key thing here is don't assign some intern to handle it. The host or someone on the air must be involved with the interaction, or the listeners will know and you lose credibility.

I've been in this long enough to have gone through the rise and fall of MySpace. It's very possible that Facebook will go the same way after the IPO. And Twitter hasn't gone public yet. The point here isn't the specific social media company, but that you're engaging with your listeners on all possible platforms. If your listeners are there, you need to be there with them. People are smart enough to be able to listen on the radio and type. I'm writing this post and watching the Super Bowl. At the same time!

 

[wadio]

While you're at it, why not take the station website down too.

Because the station website is something you can control. Facebook, not so much.

 

[TheBigA]

While you're at it, why not take the station website down too.

Because the station website is something you can control. Facebook, not so much.

And that's why listeners are more likely to say what they think on Facebook and not a station site. They trust the third party. And it's ALL about trust.

People in radio need to let go of control! If I've learned only one thing in the last ten years, it's that you can go much further with the help of the audience than you can by yourself.

 

[wadio]

They trust the third party.

Maybe now. After the IPO? Stay tuned.

 

[TheBigA]

They trust the third party.

Maybe now. After the IPO? Stay tuned.

I agree, and I said so in my previous post. That opens the door for the next platform. But it won't be a station web site.

 

[borderblaster]

If Facebook goes away, something else (Google +?) will take it's place. The concept will stay forever. All the talk of not sending people to Facebook so they won't tune away is nonsense. You send them to your Facebook page and in turn your Facebook page sends them back to the station (the concept of: making appointments with your listeners). Unless you're seriously telling us that the station should be saying "now everyone, stop what you're doing and pay attention).

 

[PTBoardOp94]

The whole point of sending listeners to social media is so your posts to social media send them back to you.

I go and like WIBC/Indianapolis on Facebook. Their staff posts content every few hours, tonight related to Super Bowl XLVI, hoping to drive viewers to visit the web site or turn to 93.1 and listen.

The staff would most certainly prefer to not go through hundreds or thousands of reader comments a day. But the comment systems increase visit length on the web by an order of magnitude. More visit length helps build a brand (although not always in a good way).

To answer the OP:

If you didn't give people the chance to tweet to CNN, you really think they're instead going to go rustle up a good ol' fashioned political argument with their friends on twitter? So they can trade 140 characters at a time? Nice conversation.

Absolutely. CNN is trying to leverage the conversations that were already taking place online.

By the way, I don't disagree that this might be a passing fad. That doesn't mean its a bad thing for the media to get into.

 

[jas2525]

Social media has it's place. I just wish the traditional media would stop tripping all over itself to kiss social media's arse.

You sound like a boomer. In the old days, one way media was fine. People sat around the radio and listened. That's not the way it works. Listeners want to interact and give their opinions. Using traditional radio tools, like taking phone calls, puts the power in the hands of call screeners. But even then, if you're willing to interact using the phone, what's the problem with social media?

The point of radio is engaging the listener. The best way to do that is to go to them. Not sit in an ivory tower. The reality is that the callers generally don't have anything earth shattering to say. You take calls to engage and involve the audience, and make them feel a part of the show. But the actual content of the calls aren't always worth putting on the air, giving them credibility, and potentially annoying other listeners. So you keep that whole conversation off the air on a platform that won't hurt your ratings, namely social media. Then if something great happens there, you put it on the air. Similar to call screening. But the key thing here is don't assign some intern to handle it. The host or someone on the air must be involved with the interaction, or the listeners will know and you lose credibility.

I've been in this long enough to have gone through the rise and fall of MySpace. It's very possible that Facebook will go the same way after the IPO. And Twitter hasn't gone public yet. The point here isn't the specific social media company, but that you're engaging with your listeners on all possible platforms. If your listeners are there, you need to be there with them. People are smart enough to be able to listen on the radio and type. I'm writing this post and watching the Super Bowl. At the same time!

The value of callers is, among other things, to engage another VOICE. Listening to interesting conversation is what this is all about. It IS radio, ya' know.

Hearing hosts read transcripts of twitter or facebook exchanges is BORING.

As far as "engaging" the listeners: How do you expect a radio station to engage thousands of listeners in a QUALITATIVE, non-TOP-DOWN manner? Radio and TV stations cannot be penpals to thousands and thosuands of people. The best they can do is be yet another SPAM generator.

Once again, while trying to be *visionary*, radio takes it's eye off the ball.

 

[TheBigA]

The value of callers is, among other things, to engage another VOICE. Listening to interesting conversation is what this is all about. It IS radio, ya' know.

As I said in my post, you use social media as call screening. If someone says something interesting message them to call a special number. Not all callers are interesting. Believe me.

It's not hard to interact with thousands of listeners via Twitter or Facebook. It happens all the time. Have an open mind. It's all communication. It's not taking your eye off the ball.

 

[jas2525]

As I said in my post, you use social media as call screening. If someone says something interesting message them to call a special number. Not all callers are interesting. Believe me.

That would all have to be handled by support staff. Too often I've heard hosts try to interact with someone via computer WHILE ON AIR. As a listener, I find it as insulting as having someone respond to you while they're reading the paper. Eye off the ball.

And no, MOST callers aren't interesting, but a good host can make a caller much more interesting by the way they handle them.

 

[Holland Cooke]

"Ladies! Ladies! PLEASE. There's plenty of me to go-around..."

I heard an interview by Ed Schultz yesterday, with the keenly articulate, always classy and oft funny man-of-the-hyphen, Holland Cooke. As usual, Holland was singing the praises of, and warning of the dangers of ignoring, social media.

Irony: online conversation between Social Media doubters.
APOLOGIES that I got here late.
I was focused on on-air programming while y'all were...socializing, here, in this medium.

The referenced aircheck:

AFTER ELUDING 30 ROCK SECURITY, we barge-into The Ed Schultz Show, and mouth-off about why radio righties can't get-behind a candidate, why chicks DON'T dig Newt, and why Talk Radio has never had to be a better LISTENER:
http://getonthenet.com/Ed02-03-12.mp3

And NOBODY leaves without a Fabulous Radio Prize:
http://hollandcookemedia.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/today-only-free-download/

Aloha from Block Island,
HC
www.HollandCooke.com

 

[wadio]

The whole point of sending listeners to social media is so your posts to social media send them back to you.

I don't see that happening, at least not very often. We content consumers tend to drill down from the general to the specific. Radio is the general, top-level destination.

If you want to drive listeners away from the broadcast, you can do it by offering more details about a story, pictures, etc. But what incentive can you use to get them back? "For the same stories you see here, without pictures, delivered on our schedule without the ability for you to interact, tune to our station!"

The reality is that radio is a passive medium. There's nothing wrong with that! There are times when we want to just sit back and be entertained without being challenged to participate or do our own navigating. Radio needs to build on its strength (with compelling programming) and not try to be something it's not.