#taliademarco

[kcb206group15]

The Telemetrics of Social Media

Image source: http://terezalitsa.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/do-you-watch-tv-without-using-social.html

Social media is increasingly playing an important role in television; playing a key role in the promotion of upcoming shows, being utilised for on-air interactions with the audience across a variety of genres, and also as a tool for measuring the success of a show, at least with the audience segment which social media represents (Woodford, Prowd and Bruns, 2014).

A programme that is trending on Twitter is increasingly a currency of success or failure (Bucklet, 2011). "The influence of the twittersphere can disproportionately impact on a show, so if there is a torrent of abuse, or the other way around, a torrent of love, that shines a spotlight that is definitely a factor in commissioning meetings" (Nelson, 2011).

Television and Twitter are entwining closer and closer together as networks hop on the second screen bandwagon. A recent article in BRW, stated Twitter is ‘alive and thriving’ in Australia because of TV (McIntye, 2014). The industry is not only active in engaging with viewers, but it has been one of the leaders in incorporating hashtags into both day-to-day tweets and into bigger marketing campaigns (Washenko, 2013).

Image source: http://sproutsocial.com/insights/twitter-hashtags-tv-shows/

Hashtags offer brands a multifaceted approach to social media. Hashtags are also used as a way of coordinating dicussion around a topic; they are a very good way to pick up data from the Twitter API (Woodford, 2014). Within the world of entertainment programming tweeters and Facebook fans have found a new way to enrich their TV viewing, for instance, the live twitter feed on programing which allows audiences comments and tweets to be broadcasted live.

Australian reality TV has effectively intregrated the use of live feeds into several shows including, The Block, My Kitchen Rules, The Voice, X Factor and Biggest Loser. One of the most popular this year has been #MKR with the Australian Twitter office releasing stats to show that My Kitchen Rules is the most engaged TV show on Twitter.  In the race for reality TV, #MKR generated 260% more twitter “buzz” than #TheBlock since the 2014 launch (Long, 2014).

Image source: http://cyberguardiansonline.com/tag/the-block/

This buzz, generates not only publicity for the program but also determines it’s success. Rather than taking out billboards, television commercials or other traditional means of advertising, television programs are now using Twitter audiences to affectively advertise for them. Through Twitter, audiences are able to distribute Tweets, brand name and advertise the fact that the show is actually on to their whole follower base. This is a very valuable marketing technique for these companies. Similarly, liking their Facebook page or a photo shares that information with a portion of your Facebook friends. Ultimately, this is effectively free promotion and advertising and Darryl Woodford (2014) classifies this as a cycle of free promotion. The more people that tweet something, the more people retweet something, the more people see it and that cycle continues on and on and you end up with this kind of vitality of marketing.

Again, My Kitchen Rules utilities their audiences interaction to benefit the shows publicity and popularity. The producers of #MKR have built fandom into the core of the production and as a result they generated huge volumes of conversation on Twitter. #MKR created and promoted on-air bespoke hashtags that summed up their characters in a way that was funny and engaging. Very quickly the audience championed their favourites by tweeting their support for the likes of the #Besties, the #Newlyweds, #TeamCheese or the #SAmums (Broderick, 2014).

Image source: http://eftm.com.au/2014/04/its-official-my-kitchen-rules-mkr-is-a-huge-online-and-social-success-14999

Essentially, all the information collected is data used by television producers to determine what features were successful and generated the most interest by the audience. The use of Twitter as a tool for measuring the success of a program is evident in the #MKR example. The sheer volume of social media activity demonstrates why it is important for companies to successfully interact with audiences on both television and social media. The success or failure of a show often depends on it.  

References:

Broderick, T. (2014). #MKR: A 101 to producing must-tweet TV | Twitter Blogs. [online] Twitter Blogs. Available at: https://blog.twitter.com/2014/mkr-a-101-to-producing-must-tweet-tv [Accessed 6 May. 2014].

Bulkley, K. (2011). The impact of Twitter on TV shows. The Guardian. [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/jun/06/twitter-facebook-television-shows# [Accessed 6 May. 2014].

Deacon, B. (2014). The Block | Cyber Guardians Online. [online] Cyberguardiansonline.com. Available at: http://cyberguardiansonline.com/tag/the-block/ [Accessed 6 May. 2014].

McIntyre, P. (2014). Twitter ‘alive and thriving’ in Australia because of TV. [online] BRW. Available at: http://www.brw.com.au/p/marketing/twitter_alive_and_thriving_in_australia_xBJ3r5ufk9ZcRDDViEkdlM [Accessed 6 May. 2014].

Long, T. (2014). It’s official: My Kitchen Rules (#MKR) is a huge online and social success. [online] EFTM. Available at: http://eftm.com.au/2014/04/its-official-my-kitchen-rules-mkr-is-a-huge-online-and-social-success-14999 [Accessed 6 May. 2014].

Washenko, A. (2013). How the TV Industry Is Leading in Smart Twitter Hashtag Use | Sprout Social. [online] Sprout Social. Available at: http://sproutsocial.com/insights/twitter-hashtags-tv-shows/ [Accessed 6 May. 2014].

Woodford, D., Prowd, K. and Bruns, A. (2014). Telemetrics: Towards Measuring Social Media Engagement with Television. [PDF] Available at: http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-5234702-dt-content-rid-2118244_1/courses/KCB206_14se1/Woodford%2C%20Prowd%20and%20Bruns%20%20Telemetrics%20Towards%20Measuring%20Social%20Media%20Engagement%20with%20Television.pdf [Accessed 6 May. 2014].

Woodford, D. (2014). Big Data Lecture. [PDF] Available at: http://www.dpwoodford.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/KCB206-Big-Data-Lecture_Small.pdf [Accessed 6 May. 2014].

[kcb206group15]

Are you at risk of being ripped off?

The question of who should regulate the Internet is a subject that has been fiercely debated all around the world. Previous concepts of blurring boundaries, privacy issues and the changing roles between consumer and producer which have emerged from the participatory culture new media now affords directly links to this debate as these new opportunities have caused new concerns and problems in relation to regulation.

These new technologies have introduced new complexities into law and governance. Terry Flew (2014) identifies three major challenges of new media law as; the intangibility of digital information’s, the global nature of the Internet and its network infrastructure and the question of whether Internet law can, should or does exist?

It is the global nature of the Internet technology that challenges traditional national structures of regulation.  ‘The internet itself, as a technology predicated on facilitating abundance, interoperability and a lack of respect for national borders, has problematised and undermined traditional structures of regulation’ (Freedman 2012: 97).  This in turn creates questions of can existing laws and regulations be sustained and do they actually address these complexities.

Given the complexities that new media technologies provide the main areas of governance should aim to be directed at; structures, transactions, content, conduct and behaviours (Sauter, 2014).  The redistribution of power amongst audiences that sees user-generated content being created has sparked a debate of Internet intellectual copyright laws.

Flew provides an interesting point regarding intellectual property “Embedded within copyright, then, are two competing normative visions of intellectual property. One is the notion that it can be privately owned as property, from which its owners can expect a reasonable level of remuneration from its use. The other is that intellectual property consists of ideas, concepts and forms of expression whose public circulation is central to the principles of freedom of speech, equitable access to public information, and economic efficiency.” (Flew 2014, 189).

His idea of privately owned property that is expressed through public circulation is highlighted through the viral content platform of YouTube. A recent example, really highlight for me the question of who owns the videos that are uploaded on YouTube and are there any intellectual property laws that govern the site?

Fellow Youtuber Zach Mander posted in July of last year, a spoof of a Cheeto Cannon, which shoots the delicious cheese-flavoured snacks through a cannon-like-device “to make eating on the couch less intensive” (Young, 2014).

  Zach, Source: YouTube

Arnott’s a couple of days couple launched their new ad campaign that follows a similar line of thinking: massive cannon, add Shapes, flavour hit ensues.

  Shapes, Source: YouTube

Pretty similar right? Well, Arnott’s spokesman claims it’s “merely incidental”. Mander in response said “We’re not one’s to point scotch fingers, but we think that we have been ripped off. We are happy for Arnott’s to use our idea, as long as they abide by the conditions we set out in our video response.”

Arnott’s have since responded to some of Mander’s demands, sending him and his friends 1200 boxes of shapes. While this time, it’s a pretty comedic outcome there are plenty of other instances of big companies and corporations used crowdsourcing and user-generated content to benefit their own needs. This again brings up my argument from my previous blog post - If corporations can use our participation against us in order to gain economic gain then aren’t they really the ones who hold all the power?

Legally speaking, YouTube’s Terms of Service outlines their stance on intellectual property stating:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms

In short, YouTube own you. You do all the creative work and get nothing. This to me really highlights the need for new regulations and new ways of managing our freedom (Sauter, 2014).  We need to find new ways to regulate new media technologies that will benefit not only the big corporations but the little people too. 

References:

Flew, Terry, (2014). Chapter 11 : Internet Law, Policy and Governance. In Flew, Terry, New media, (pp.178 - 197). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Sauter, Theresa. 2014 “New Media Communication: Week 7 Additional Resources.” Accessed April 15, 2014 http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232449_1

Stay Gold Pony Boy (2014, April 7). Arnott's Stole Our Idea [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdAaJr0rXFg&feature=youtu.be

Young, M. (2014, April). Spot the similarities: Arnott’s accused of plagiarising Shapes television commercial. Retrieved from http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/spot-the-similarities-arnotts-accused-of-plagiarising-shapes-television-commercial/story-fnkgdftz-1226877968496