People want better content – stop publishing crap for the sake of it.
Digiday yesterday published a post based on comments from the team behind the Economist’s social media presence. In the post, the Economist’s team talk about how they realised that ‘We were wasting time churning out tweets’.
We’ve certainly seen the switch from quantity to quality content over the past two years as people become more fatigued by the (sorry) ‘always on’ nature of social media.
Back in the day we’d advise clients to publish five tweets and one to two Facebook posts every day. The intention was to stay top of mind and appear omnipresent in the newsfeeds.
Looking back now it was the right approach – everyone was getting to grips with the novelty of being able to overshare so it was important to try and rise above the noise.
Now, as the industry has matured, and people reading content have become more discerning in what they expect to see from brands, the requirement to focus on quality over quantity has prevailed.
We’re now advising clients that it’s more impactful to create a few pieces of amazing content, rather than diluting the newsfeed with content that sinks quicker than the time it takes to type it.
Publishing 25 tweets a week is insane. It is drain on your team’s creativity; it’s a drain on your budget; you can never ever win – no matter how much content you publish, someone will always be able to out-publish you.
If it’s good enough for the Economist, it’s good enough for me.
Google has published data showing which countries’ governments most often ask for data to be removed from Google indexing or for information to be shared.
Brazil, intriguingly, comes top of both lists. It should be noted that these requsts are raw data and not as a proportion of those with Internet access in each country.
China is the main notable absentee, with no data available.
The use of this data is very much in its infancy, but it’s interestnig that Google are happy to share this with the wider public.
United States 123
South Korea 64
United Kingdom 59
New Zealand <10
United States 3580
United Kingdom 1166
South Korea 44
Mashable is reporting today that three Google Executives have been found guilty of privacy violations, giving them a 6 month suspended sentence.
The Google employees were sued after a video was posted (and subsequently removed) to Google’s video sharing site showing a boy with Down syndrome being bullied.
Google responded to the decision with a blog post:
“We are deeply troubled by this conviction for another equally important reason. It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. Common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming. European Union law was drafted specifically to give hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. The belief, rightly in our opinion, was that a notice and take down regime of this kind would help creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.”
I think this is deeply troubling. Why should three people, with no direct involvement in the recording or posting of the video, find themselves the subject of criminal activity?
I agree with Stan Shroeder’s assessment of this when he says:
[it] at the very least bizarre and shows a blatant misunderstanding of how the Internet and various social content sharing services work.
The way we consume and share content has changed irreversibly, for better or worse, and content ownership rights have to be updated as a result.
Three individuals, with no direct involvement with the video, should not be faced with prosecution, letalone prison. It is up to the police to find the people in the actual video and to bring them to justice.
What do you think?