Did you know that the top celebrities make over $10,000 for sending out one Tweet? A message less than 140 characters is worth $10,000, such as these first two phrases! [Word count: 139]
Ad.ly is an advertising broker working with advertisers and celebrities. While Ad.ly will not say what celebrities make, there is this Wall Street Journal article that is relatively reliable in confirming the rumors. One single tweet generates $10,000 for a celebrity, but for you [likely], who slaves for hours on their blog or community, or business - it is closer to nil. How does this make you feel?
There are now new age public relations firms creating staged video content just to grab YouTube viewers. The problem might not seem obvious at first, but like celebrity "news", there is little intellectual value in these two-faced stories. A well produced, acted and scripted grassroots video might be believable. If it was designed to deceive just to get more viewers [go viral], how would that make you feel, a bit deceived?
Does deceptive public relations and celebrities making all the "social money" mean that social media is going downhill? No, I do not believe this for a second. There is a certain kind of beauty in variety. Of course, there are also intellectual celebrities and public relations firms trying to make a true difference. The Internet provides so much content with so many delivery vehicles that it's mind boggling. Social media is another layer of this beauty.
Old Media against New Media?
The YouTube Video that sparked this post is about a supposed hacker who discovered a way to interrupt and takeover the New York Times Square advertising screens. It would be an amazing security breach, while also dominating viewers' time through social sharing. This video is a fake, hence the arrested video-views. Sure, we all need some entertainment. We don't want every piece of content online to be intellectually stimulating, right? My problem with this video is that it has two faces. You read the title expecting a stimulating video that inspires. Then a day later you discover it was all a hoax, just for a large PR firm to make money.
The New York Times reported that this story broke out on a few outlets/websites. However, I would venture to argue that the vast majority of the initial momentum came from Reddit. Does the New York Times have something against giving credit to Reddit? Anyway, perhaps it was an honest mistake and they did not know the story was posted there. When I saw it via Reddit, the video was at about 4300 views (now at 1.7 million), and considering Reddit generates 1 billion page views a month (14 million U.V.'s/Mo.), this is where the intriguing video actually got its start. This is also why the deceptive nature of the two faced video appears because of the time delay from spreading the word about this inspiring video to the PR Firm coming out and admitting it is not real.
Social media gives a whole new meaning to when a journalist "picked up the story". Good Journalism is still appreciated, but it is not social media that is devolving, it's Journalism. More and more social media users are realizing that if they are a tiny bit more selfish in the way they consume content, their news can be customized, it can be shared very easily between friends that enjoy the same topics. Media is no longer an environment of dictating gatekeepers, it is a complex info-eco-system that molds to what users want. Sites like Reddit provide that beautiful, customizable streaming variety. Instead of reading a newspaper article online, everything is now dynamic, from articles being voted up, or down on the front page, to comments themselves being voted up for valuable input, to a comment voted down because it doesn't make sense. Compared to old media and old newspapers converted to websites, social media is light years ahead. Content is being shared between friends, commented on then voted up and commented on some more, all days before a traditional outlet publishes an article about the same story.
So the video about hacking into the NYTimes Square screens was fiction. It was a new age Public Relations firm looking to promote a product. This is why I decided to write this post. Social media is not devolving. Sure some agencies, companies and firms will resort to the lowest rung to get viewers, but it is interesting to note that, the moment their deceptive plan is exposed as a promotion for a movie, the viewers stop viewing. This is one priceless aspect of the social media info-eco-system. The virality of a video will end once social media users start realizing that it was a cheap marketing ploy to get viewers.
Unprecedented Demand for Celebrity Access
As you know, social media has created unprecedented access to celebrities. You think the National Enquirer has high readership? Compare an old newspaper stand flyer turned website to a celebrity herself creating a Twitter account, and the potential for that celebrity to send out a message about you! Forbes ran a story where the author is just gushing with desire to go see Charlie Sheen live, which was supposedly demanded by his social media followers. Forbes has pioneered a successful transition of "old media outlet" to a new age social platform, where sharing is integral to their website. However, I cannot help but see Forbes in a slightly darker light for running that gushing insubstantial blog post. It's gone from deep digging financial articles to a brief complaint, by a Forbes writer, about having to work instead of seeing the Charlie Sheen rant in concert.
Celebrity gossip is great for some, but for me, I feel like I need a shower after seeing all the dirt on Sheen being slung around. This author on Social Times was also getting sick of all the Charlie Sheen catchphrases splattered all over the Internet. And another one of our fellow Social Media Today writers just threw up his hands and said, "Say it ain't so!" Sheen's words might sound a bit creative and intriguing at first, but it lasts for all of 10 seconds because there is little value in what he is actually saying. With an increase in social media users flocking around a celebrity account, does that equal a decrease in the value of social media? I say without a doubt, no. The fact that Mr. Sheen can make $10,000 for one very short message speaks to his exposure as a well known actor, than it does to demeaning your work ethic.
Though Still Optimistic
Insubstantial tweets and blathering articles do not advance our knowledge, they dumb us down. Despite hints in both old and new media that the social era is going downhill, I am still optimistic. The Internet provides a vastly complex eco-system of information and interactions. Yes, new age public relations firms are manipulating the publics' trust by producing fictional videos, to promote their client's product. Sure, celebrities are taking six figure pay cheques from sending one micro-message on Twitter. But think about the boundless variety in social media users and what social websites have to offer! I couldn't adequately summarize this variety in a book, so I will certainly not try in one blog post.