Social Network Content Creation Levels Off

I read some pretty interesting stuff on Mashable yesterday about how content creation on social networks appears to have plateaued. A study performed by Forrester shows that while involvement in social networks has increased, the amount of content created by users has not.
The Forrester study breaks up consumers into seven distinct profiles of Conversationalist, Critics, Collectors, Joiners, Spectators, Inactives, and finally Creators. In the case of Creators, the study found that the number of Creators dipped slightly in 2010, from 24% to 23%.

Source: Mashable.com

What this most likely means is that many people who are joining social networks nowadays are more spectators than they are producers of content, and that's fine. I think people get a little over excited when they mention the people will take the power out of hands of current content creators (TV, radio, newspaper, etc.) and place it into the hands of everyday people.

There's no disputing that the rise of the internet and social networks have allowed ordinary people like me to become content creators in our own right, but not everyone is interested in creating content.

We should also take into account that the amount of information shared across the internet is truly astounding. With so many outlets for news and content, people are more likely to syndicate or share content across the web rather than produce their own. I imagine that I'm the nth person to write about this very same story.

Maybe Ashton Kutcher Isn't So Influential After All

When it comes to social networks, some of the numbers thrown around are truly astounding. Everyone knows that Facebook recently eclipsed the 500 million users mark, Twitter has 145 million users, and Linkedin is not far behind at 75 million. But some of the truly astounding numbers come via Twitter, where popularity reigns supreme. A man much smarter than me (Brian Solis), sums it up best when he writes,

" For better or worse, Twitter introduces the notion of popularity, whereby the numbers of followers and also the friend to follower ratio we possess indicate ones stature within Twitterverse. As I’ve said over the years, popularity does not beget influence, but the egosystem and all who define it, do in fact reward and nurture it."

 Did you know that celebrities like Ashton Kutcher and Britney Spears have more Twitter followers than the countries of Israel, Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland? Kutcher has close to 6 million followers, which is a lot of influence for someone who makes mediocre movies, and is famous for marrying Demi Moore.

Or is it a lot of influence? A recent study conducted by scientists at Northwestern University concludes that celebrities who have brought Twitter in popular culture, are actually largely ignored by their followers. Instead, it's less known "experts" who are wielding all the influence. These lesser known "experts", are actually experts in their respective fields whether it be social media, music or rock climbing.

It makes sense if you really think about it. I follow celebs like Kanye West and Fabolous for purely entertainment value, but most of the time I do not keep up with their tweets. I don't see much dialogue being generated from what Kanye had for lunch. This quote from the lead researcher on the study, Professor Alok Choudhary stood out to me:

"A lot of people think that just because you tweet a lot means you may have influence or you are important. But there are a lot of junk tweets.
"Our premise is that influencers are those that dynamically change the opinions of people on specific topics, or the topic of the moment.

So just because Ashton Kutcher is popular and tweets a lot is not an indication by itself that he is influential. I would think people more like Seth Godin or Brian Solis would be more influential, because they are impacting the way people think by tweeting valuable, relevant content.

When I first started using Twitter, I thought it was simply a tool for the inane to spew their thoughts. But as I used it more and gained more followers, I realized that I could ignore all the chatter and find the information I needed. When I became more knowledgeable about Twitter, I became obsessed with the popularity aspect of it; I started following random people in an attempt to acquire more followers, and I would tweet only about myself.

But soon I realized that this was ill-advised. I wasn't getting any interaction with any of my followers because I wasn't offering them anything valuable. So I began tracking conversations and initiating conversations, as well as tweeting articles, blog posts, and other information people might find interesting. Those two things got me more followers than my previous methods.

So in sum, its not about how many followers you have, but rather if you're engaging with others on Twitter and offering them something useful.

[Via Telegraph]

In An Instant

So media outlets have been abuzz today with the news of Google unveiling new search features. Early this morning, you could count me as one of the uninterested.

It's not because I don't care about what Google does, its just that with school now back in session I have many other obligations to attend to.

One of those obligations is blogging. (Sorry I'm late! I didn't have internet in my apt. last night and the library was so far away!) I was writing a post for My iWriter when I realized that I needed a picture.

So like everyone else who needs something and needs it now, where do you go? Google. I typed in google.com into the address bar, typed in blogging into Google and wham! I was hit with instant search, my eyes almost popping out of their sockets!

How glorious a concept! As if searching Google wasn't fast enough, now I get to see my results as I type. I need some time to process this information.




Ok done. I'm trying to think of the implications of Google's new technology. Obviously users will now be able to search better and faster. Instead of typing in various terms hoping for certain results, now you can see where the results are going and change accordingly.

For a blogger like me this is great. I can get my search results super quick, cutting down the amount of time I need to search the internet for things such as pictures, links, etc. While the time it takes to load search results normally is minimal, this is a huge advancement. With the advent of the internet, humans nowadays are accustomed to getting their information quickly, and this is even quicker.

I was in class while writing this so I don't have time to fully ponder the implications, but this is a good start. What do you think the impact of Google's new technology will be?

I was reading PR-Squared the other day when I came across a post titled, "Which Social Media Marketing Agencies Will Thrive in 5 Years?"


I thought to myself, Well that's a strange train of thought. Why wouldn't social media agencies thrive? 


The author makes the argument that every Industrial Revolution is essentially a story about battling for control. It points to historical examples such as the oil, railroad and telephone industries and to more modern examples such as cable, search engines (Google) and even social media (Facebook).


As a history major, I of course understood that veracity of this argument, and it disheartened me for a little bit.


But after sitting down and thinking for a while, it actually gave me some hope.


You see, I've always wanted to start my own business, and now is really a great time to do so, especially for social media.


Mentioned in the post was the fact that many PR and Advertising agencies are trying to hoard social media expertise and add it to the list of services they already offer. While this may be true, I do not think that this is necessarily bad news. This means that social media is becoming even more important which is a good thing, meaning more jobs and opportunities in the communications industry.

But as the post mentioned, early on in industrial revolutions there are little barriers to entry, and only as the revolution becomes older do we see more consolidation.


So now is about as good of a time for me to start my own social media advertising, public relations or marketing agency. I could easily set it up with little cost: I already have a name, all I need is a logo, a website, some business cards and some clients. 


Although I am busy at school this year, I could do it right now and work part time from my room. I could enlist the various student groups on campus and other nonprofits in the area. Who knows, maybe I could turn it into something big. Whether I'll go through with it or not remains to be seen. (I have to get over my fear of failing first.)


What are your thoughts about this topic? Are you thinking of starting your own social media agency? Discuss.