Social media has rapidly become an important part of business if not personal lives. Just a few years ago, Facebook was the online playground of the under-25s and success for Twitter was just a twinkle in the eye of its founder.
But my, my, how things have changed. Business use of Facebook has increased exponentially year on year, used by businesses small, large, national and global as a way of communicating with their customers and target customer base. Charitable organisations, too, have recognised the power of social media over huge advertising spends. Just think about the recent Ice Bucket Challenge craze that swept the social-media globe, raising millions of charity dollars with zero dollar outlay by the charity and simultaneously raising its profile to a totally new platform and audience. By the way, I nominate … (just kidding!)
So of course, there are many benefits and advantages that this comparatively new communications tool brings to bear and I, for one, am an exponent of using social media for marketing communications. But, of course, there is a “but.”
The “but” for me is two-fold. Firstly, the time-consumption and secondly, the lack of censorship or control over information that can be posted/tweeted online for anyone to potentially access and see.
[callout template=”default”]I simply cannot resist temptation to enter into dialogue with a brainwashed and ill-informed but no doubt well-intentioned group of fellow Tweeters. [/callout]
Here in the UK, a recent report showed that between July 2013 and July 2014, Members of Parliament (MPs) – similar to your Members of Congress – spent a collective total of 115 days or 2,774 hours sending Tweets. This was up from 1,000 hours in 2011-2012. In anyone’s language, this is a huge amount of time that, no doubt, many would argue could be better spent. Having said that, 70% of MPs have a Twitter account, so it clearly is recognised as a necessary component of an MP’s communications toolkit.
Our Foreign and Commonwealth Office has spent more than $150,000 on social media training for Diplomats and staff. Money well spent? Well perhaps not, when you think of the recent faux pas by the British Embassy in the U.S., when a mis-judged “joke Tweet” to mark the 200th anniversary of the Burning of Washington resulted in an online/media frenzy and a subsequent apology from the British Embassy.
From time to time, I have found myself embroiled in what I can only describe as Tweet-battles with anti-tanning protagonists. Against advice, I simply cannot resist temptation to enter into dialogue with a brain-washed and ill-informed but no doubt well-intentioned group of fellow Tweeters. As you well know, Tweets are generally comments or snapshot opinions (of 140-characters or less) and they certainly do not have to be based on fact.
Communicating an opinion in less than 140-characters is undoubtedly a skill, and the complex nuances of the English language are often laid open to misinterpretation. But in my opinion, that’s okay and understandable (or not, as the case may be!); however, when it comes to blatantly offensive and rude dialogue, the lack of available censorship on Twitter in particular demands a radical re-think.
There is a fair amount of anti-tanning propaganda disseminated through social-networking, but this almost pales into insignificance when compared with the blatant lies and offensives that the fringes of such antagonists to our industry perpetuate without any accountability. Challenging and rebutting such posts is where I focus my social networking time – why not join me @garylipman? Some of my retorts, in less than 140-characters, may bring a smile to your day. ■
I simply cannot resist temptation to enter into dialogue with a brainwashed
and ill-informed but no doubt well-intentioned group of fellow Tweeters.
