Monday, 23 November 2009
Status Updates
Watching this video (below) explaining social updates I get the feeling that what they call “the ambient model” is identical to “the broadcasting model”, and that social updates (in the form being explained) is just a personal version of the one way mass communication model that we are all trying to innovate on behalf of brands.
It seems we’ve gone full circle here, from companies marketing to small then large markets. And now people marketing themselves and their social activities from close friends to large groups. Large enough to make the activities resembling dialogue so minimal compared to the size of the network that the conversation becomes a presentation.
As have been pointed out to me earlier when I have criticized the use of Twitter and other social tools for becoming “broadcast” utilities: That these tools are just tools, not uses – let people find their own purpose, don’t artificially limit them.
But it still is important to remember that just because we are people, not companies, our communication is not any less likely to become non-social. And if we as individuals can’t refrain from broadcasting, then how can we demand it from companies?
From the video:
- “you hear only what you choose to hear. Everyone else’s broadcasts is just ambient noise until you decide to listen in”…
- Reminds me of advertising and the 3000 impressions we get exposed to every day, ambient, for sure.. :o)
I’m certain a lot of people get a lot of value out of their twittering and social updates, I for certain am one of them. But looking at how easy it is to turn our own best efforts into the same communications concepts we have tried to avoid for years.. It underlines the importance to keep looking for ideas and utilities for these social tools and be a conscious of our own use. Not just be as mesmerized as companies have been by the opportunity to “connect” with thousands of recipients and forgetting to explore the quality of this interaction.
Facebook stats
General Growth:
- More than 300 million active users
- 50% of our active users log on to Facebook in any given day
- The fastest growing demographic is those 35 years old and older
- Average user has 130 friends on the site
- More than 8 billion minutes are spent on Facebook each day (worldwide)
- More than 45 million status updates each day
- More than 10 million users become fans of Pages each day
- More than 2 billion photos uploaded to the site each month
- More than 14 million videos uploaded each month
- More than 2 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) shared each week
- More than 3 million events created each month
- More than 45 million active user groups exist on the site
- More than 70 translations available on the site
- About 70% of Facebook users are outside the United States
- More than one million developers and entrepreneurs from more than 180 countries
- Every month, more than 70% of Facebook users engage with Platform applications
- More than 350,000 active applications currently on Facebook Platform
- More than 250 applications have more than one million monthly active users
- More than 15,000 websites, devices and applications have implemented Facebook Connect since its general availability in December 2008
- There are more than 65 million active users currently accessing Facebook through their mobile devices.
- People that use Facebook on their mobile devices are almost 50% more active on Facebook than non-mobile users.
- There are more than 180 mobile operators in 60 countries working to deploy and promote Facebook mobile products
Possible styles?
Looking at a few documentaries, this is the sort of way it will look, maybe. I think. :)
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefit-busters/video/series-1/episode-2/easier-on-the-dole
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/who-you-callin-a-nigger
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefit-busters/video/series-1/episode-2/easier-on-the-dole
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/who-you-callin-a-nigger
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Personal Space: Research
Psychological intimacy
A question of some relevance in seating behaviour is the psychological closeness of different arrangements. We asked groups of approximately 100 college students each in the United States, England, Holland, Sweeden, and Pakistan to rate a series of 37 arrangements of pairs seated at square, round, and rectangular tables along a scale from 'very intimate and psychologically close' to 'very distant and psychologically remote'. The rank orde of closeness was identical in all five countries. Side-by-side seating was always the most intimate, followed by corner seating, face-to-face seating, and various distant or catty-corner arrangements.
Distance and intimacy
Russo asked the students to rate diagrams of seating arrangements at a rectangular table (2-1-2-1). She found that increased distance produced ratings of less acquaintance, less friendliness, and lower talkativeness, except where increased eye contact counteracted the effects of increased distance. Even though the physical distance was greater between the two people at the head and foot of the table, there was more psychological closeness between them.
The limits of comfortable conversation
This study was based on the previous observation that people conversing prefer to sit across from one another, although at some slight angle, rather than side by side. However, it is obvious that this must be qualified by the size of the gap between the people. If two men are given the choice of conversing across from one another at a distance of 30 feet or sitting side by side on a sofa, they will select the sofa. This means that people will sit across from one another until the distance between them exceeds the limit for comfortable conversation. By noting the point at which people begin to sit side by side, we can learn the limits of comfortable converation under the particular conditions used. Two sofas in an attractively furnished lounge were placed at prearranged distances from one another before each session. Pairs of subjects were asked to enter the lounge and discuss various impersonal topics. The people sat on different sofa's - from three-and-one-half-feet and beyond, people sat side by side. It can be noted that, wich sofa's like these, people's heads are usually one foot behind the front of the sofa. Using the architect's concept of nose-to-nose distance, our subjects began to sit side by side when they were five-and-one-half feet apart. Under the particular conditions we used - two people who knew each other slightly discussing an impersonal topic in a large lounge - this can be considered the upper limit for comfortable conversation. The room scale is smaller in private homes, and there is some evidence that as room size becomes larger, people sit closer together. The same occurs when noise level and distraction increase.
A question of some relevance in seating behaviour is the psychological closeness of different arrangements. We asked groups of approximately 100 college students each in the United States, England, Holland, Sweeden, and Pakistan to rate a series of 37 arrangements of pairs seated at square, round, and rectangular tables along a scale from 'very intimate and psychologically close' to 'very distant and psychologically remote'. The rank orde of closeness was identical in all five countries. Side-by-side seating was always the most intimate, followed by corner seating, face-to-face seating, and various distant or catty-corner arrangements.
Distance and intimacy
Russo asked the students to rate diagrams of seating arrangements at a rectangular table (2-1-2-1). She found that increased distance produced ratings of less acquaintance, less friendliness, and lower talkativeness, except where increased eye contact counteracted the effects of increased distance. Even though the physical distance was greater between the two people at the head and foot of the table, there was more psychological closeness between them.
The limits of comfortable conversation
This study was based on the previous observation that people conversing prefer to sit across from one another, although at some slight angle, rather than side by side. However, it is obvious that this must be qualified by the size of the gap between the people. If two men are given the choice of conversing across from one another at a distance of 30 feet or sitting side by side on a sofa, they will select the sofa. This means that people will sit across from one another until the distance between them exceeds the limit for comfortable conversation. By noting the point at which people begin to sit side by side, we can learn the limits of comfortable converation under the particular conditions used. Two sofas in an attractively furnished lounge were placed at prearranged distances from one another before each session. Pairs of subjects were asked to enter the lounge and discuss various impersonal topics. The people sat on different sofa's - from three-and-one-half-feet and beyond, people sat side by side. It can be noted that, wich sofa's like these, people's heads are usually one foot behind the front of the sofa. Using the architect's concept of nose-to-nose distance, our subjects began to sit side by side when they were five-and-one-half feet apart. Under the particular conditions we used - two people who knew each other slightly discussing an impersonal topic in a large lounge - this can be considered the upper limit for comfortable conversation. The room scale is smaller in private homes, and there is some evidence that as room size becomes larger, people sit closer together. The same occurs when noise level and distraction increase.
Social Encounters: Research continued
Michael Argyle and Janet Dean
Eye Contact, Distance and Affiliation
During social interaction, people look each other in the eye, repeatedly but for short periods. When glances are longer than this (about 3-10 seconds) anxiety is aroused. Without eye contact, people do not feel that they are fully in communication. Simmel has described it as 'a wholly new and unique union between two people', and remarked that it 'represents the most perfect reciprocity in the entire field of human relationship (Simmel, 1921).
Eye Contact, Distance and Affiliation
During social interaction, people look each other in the eye, repeatedly but for short periods. When glances are longer than this (about 3-10 seconds) anxiety is aroused. Without eye contact, people do not feel that they are fully in communication. Simmel has described it as 'a wholly new and unique union between two people', and remarked that it 'represents the most perfect reciprocity in the entire field of human relationship (Simmel, 1921).
Social Encounters: Research
Howard M. Rosenfeld
Non-Verbal Reciprocation of Approval: An Experimental Analysis
Several classes of verbal and non-verbal response have been employed effectively as social reinforcers in experiments on verbal conditioning. Recent research on three such categories - smiles, positive head nods and brief verbal recognitions such as 'mm-hmm' - has indicated that they play similar roles in free social interaction. These responses were more often emitted by subjects motivated to seek approval from peers than by control groups; and the response tended to bring about approving reactions from the peers to whom they were directed. A less expected finding was that when pairs of unaquainted peers were observed in free interaction, the rates of performance of the non-verbal approval-related responses by the two members of dyads were significantly intercorrelated. Smiles occoured at highly similar levels within the dyad during initial acquaintance periods and maintaind at this high simplicity over repeated encounters.
Non-Verbal Reciprocation of Approval: An Experimental Analysis
Several classes of verbal and non-verbal response have been employed effectively as social reinforcers in experiments on verbal conditioning. Recent research on three such categories - smiles, positive head nods and brief verbal recognitions such as 'mm-hmm' - has indicated that they play similar roles in free social interaction. These responses were more often emitted by subjects motivated to seek approval from peers than by control groups; and the response tended to bring about approving reactions from the peers to whom they were directed. A less expected finding was that when pairs of unaquainted peers were observed in free interaction, the rates of performance of the non-verbal approval-related responses by the two members of dyads were significantly intercorrelated. Smiles occoured at highly similar levels within the dyad during initial acquaintance periods and maintaind at this high simplicity over repeated encounters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)