A Field Guide to “Fake News” and Other Information Disorders explores the use of digital methods to study false viral news, political memes, trolling practices and their social life online. It responds to an increasing demand for understanding the interplay between digital platforms, misleading information, propaganda and viral content practices, and their influence on politics and public life in democratic societies.
In part four, we looked at the difference between hierarchical and collaborative conversations. Now we bring it all together and ask, “What can we do?” The answer is, a lot. There are, as it turns out, many solutions to how we can do a better job of talking to each other, and any one of these are approaches you can try in your own lives or organizations.
It was a fun presentation mixing the good and the bad. A chance to groan, cringe, shake one’s head in disapproval but also to smile and laugh. The goal was to learn from the mistakes and successes of others. Below is a brief roundup of the presentation, with some of the components of modern day storytelling. At the end of this post you’ll find a “cheat sheet” of do’s and dont’s when posting publicly which you can download, print and keep handy.
This guidebook helps media professionals of small media houses develop a better understanding of how to use data for improving their social media performance. Also includes worksheets and templates.
In 2018, LSE Arena, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera analysed the engagement of Corriere readers with content touching on the controversial and polarising topic of migration in Italy. The purpose was to address one of the most difficult problems in journalism today, which can be summed up in four related questions: • Which types of journalism intensify polarisation, and which reduce it? • How can one best communicate facts? • How can we foster constructive engagement? • Are there ways to avoid playing into the media strategies of “anti-establishment” politicians who make purposefully controversial statements in order to dominate the national debate, and then attack media who criticise them as “enemies of the people” or purveyors of “fake news”?
Our results indicated that 99.6% of the variability in adolescent girls’ satisfaction with life had nothing to do with how much they used social media.
An industry rule of thumb, verified by USA TODAY through interviews with nearly a dozen influencers, marketing professionals and influencer platform founders, is a baseline rate of about 1 percent of follower counts per sponsored Instagram post, or $100 for every 10,000 followers. That means someone with 100,000 followers might start around $1,000 per sponsored post, while an influencer with 1 million followers could charge $10,000. And some experts called that conservative. Along with pricing structures based on follower counts, CPEs (cost per engagement) have emerged as another way to calculate marketing rates. Engagement is typically defined by interactions with content such as likes, comments, clicks or shares. Engagement rates can be found by adding up all engagements on a post, dividing it by follower counts and multiplying by 100.
Graphic of layers - 1) what you share, 2) what your behavior tells them, 3) what the machine thinks about you
Andrex has become a great case study in modern marketing, because it represents the logical outcome of two dominant trends: the mission escalation trend and the conversation trend. Both are waves of brand thinking that have swept all before them in recent years, and it’s not exactly Andrex’s fault that they have been caught up in it. It’s just that the nature of their business means stretching both trends to breaking point. First, there’s the mission escalation trend. This is the homeopathy of marketing. It involves taking the functional purpose of any given product, diluting it to a slightly more abstract level, then diluting it again and repeating the process until you reach a level of abstraction so remote that any sense of specific purpose has been lost entirely. So if your product is a bar of chocolate, it’s not about giving people something chocolatey to eat, it’s about giving them a tasty treat. And it’s not about giving them a tasty treat, it’s about giving them a treat in a wider sense. And it’s not about the treat as such, but the enjoyment you get from that treat. And it’s not about the physical enjoyment, but the emotional enjoyment. And it’s not about the emotional enjoyment, but joy itself. And it’s not about experiencing joy, it’s about believing in joy. And now your brand purpose is more closely aligned to Buddhism than it is to chocolate.
Our results show that 48% of people who were exposed to the ads made future searches for weight loss information, compared with 32% of those in the control group—a 50% increase. The advertisements varied in efficacy. However, the effectiveness of the advertisements may be greatly improved by targeting individuals based on their lifestyle preferences and/or sociodemographic characteristics, which together explain 49% of the variation in response to the ads. These results demonstrate that online advertisements hold promise as a mechanism for changing population health behaviors.
An August 2017 survey from CivicScience, a next-generation consumer and media analytics company, found that very few US internet users have made a purchase based on ads they saw on social platforms, like Facebook or Snapchat.
A National Survey Sponsored By Hopelab and Well Being Trust 2018