« Arts Advocacy via YouTube | Main | What You Do Isn’t Worth Paying For: The Message Google Sends to Illustrators – Part 1 »
Yakkity Yak, Please Talk Back
By L. Corwin Christie | June 9, 2009
“COMMUNICATION: LIVE” BY KONRAD WYREBEK AT SAATCHI GALLERY, LONDON
It wasn’t long ago that I was your average internet user. More proficient than many, but not nearly as tech-savvy as some, I averaged a couple hours of every day online. I relied on the internet for everything from “catching up” passively with friends through their updated statuses and blogs, reading the news of the world, checking email, updating my blog and Tweets, shopping, and looking up interesting upcoming events. But among all of that, I tended to either ignore or delete the clutter generated by the various organizations that I demonstrably supported via my social networks and email-list affiliations.
Always happy to support by joining a group or becoming a fan, my participation stopped there. I rarely checked the list of updates on my Facebook homepage, or weekly inbox-fillings of “Last Two Weeks of Show! Get Tickets Now!” urgings. Unsolicited updates from these organizations and groups were of little interest to me–if I wanted to know something, I took it upon myself to seek it out.
When my production company established a group on Facebook, our personal friends became our fans–even if they were across the country, unable to attend our shows, and unlikely to donate money. It was, again, a show of support, solidarity, rather than a genuine interest in receiving electronic communication from us. There were no discussions being had, perhaps an occasional “can’t come to the show this weekend” or “great performance!” but in general the group seemed little more than a space full of virtual warm bodies.
So why does it surprise (and yes, frustrate) me now that, as administrator of groups on a couple of social networking sites, I see that none of the fans or members seem eager to participate in discussions? The majority of fan- or member-generated content appears to be self-promotion or the occasional specific question (usually going unanswered by other members). Open forums asking for member input to guide administrator-generated content so that it is more pertinent and interesting to the group members have reaped little to no response. One of two comments to a call for feedback included this: “I haven’t yet posted because I haven’t yet seen anyone with similar interests.”
Oh the irony.
Unless this user is sifting through the 640 other profiles of group members, he presumably is waiting for this like-minded stranger to make himself known. How? Probably by starting a discussion or posting a news item.
As I am becoming all too aware, that isn’t likely to happen. In the occasional instance when there is a member-posted news item or discussion, the number of views it receives tend toward the single-digits (out of, I remind you, 641 members).
So why do organizations have hundreds of passive fans? Why do groups have thousands of silent members? Are these people hoping to be spoon-fed information in the manner of an RSS reader (and if so, why are they not viewing news items)? Are they overwhelmed by irrelevant postings (e.g. the self-promotional posts that verge on spam)? Intimidated because they are actually not quite clear whether what they have to contribute will be judged as valuable or not?
I can understand those individuals who accepted invitations to join and as a show of support or because they didn’t want to turn down a friend and seem rude, but what about the others who find the organization or group of their own accord, request to join, and THEN lie dormant? Are they just individuals who have their own social media product, like a blog, or website, and hope that their affiliation with another group will generate more traffic for their own project?
And what does this lack of interaction mean for the buzz about social media being a non-profit organization’s new best friend?
Please, weigh in!
Topics: Art Meets Tech, Community Building, Philosophizing | 3 Comments »
June 11th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Your sentiments are well conveyed and make a lot of sense.
My thoughts and feelings about the issue go back to something you touched on in the post. I think the majority of people join groups and become fans out of a) wanting to support a friend, or b) wanting to show their solidarity with a cause, group, etc.
I am just as guilty of this when it comes to say, for example, being invited to join a group called “Save the Whales”, or “Stop Genocide”. The initial thoughts when I receive invites for groups like these are, “I probably won’t keep up with the group, but, I don’t want to deny the request because it is a good cause.”
Does this make me a jerk for not participating in the group? Not really. Does it mean I probably shouldn’t join the group? I don’t know.
A possible solution to this could be for the administrator of the group to be able to weed out those members who weren’t serious about being there. You could require posting quotas. Two per month, and at least five replies. Its a silly idea, I realize that. It would probably discourage honest dialogue and drive people away from joining.
I don’t know what the solution is for you, me, and every other person and organization who pours their intellectual minds out into a posting only to have it disappear, likely unread, into the depths of cyberspace.
The only answer I fear is to keep posting. Keep it interesting. And keep engaging.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
[...] Mellon Center for Arts Management and Technology, recently posited an interesting question on their blog. [...]
June 26th, 2009 at 9:55 am
This has been going on since before the World Wide Web came into being, when people communicated by attaching packets onto the backs of gophers. Social Networking is just the same old with a fresh coat of not very good paint.
Read Kat Nagel’s The Natural Life Cycle of Mailing Lists, circa 1995.
http://www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/lifelist.html