The rhetoric on the topic "And if we are not carried away by the new media?"
This material does not contain analytical information, supported by figures. For example, due to the laboriousness and high cost of such studies, if they are conducted objectively and at the proper qualitative and quantitative level. Therefore, this post contains a number of my personal, and therefore subjective, conclusions, as well as a sufficient number of interrogative forum, which, according to the idea, should cause at least rare desires to speak out to the local audience.
I have long been tormented by the question - is it necessary to be an active participant in social networks? Do I need to have an account on Twitter just because a friend has it, and he wrote right there from the forest that he collected 5 mushrooms, does he need to register on Facebook just because he is considered a haven for an advanced Russian IT audience with incomes above average , do you need to “like” for every occasion and without, showing your attitude? And so on - a list of similar questions can be extended to at least another ten points. Why do I need to have an account in social networks? To quickly find out that a person is having lunch in France? Why do I need Odnoklassniki and VKontakte if I feel myself an element of the incubator masses whose interests do not extend beyond the evening drinks, and the top three of the ultimate dreams include the iPhone 4 and a pumped-out Cayenne class car? Why do I need Facebook? To feel an element of a similar web, but only [of type] with somewhat greater affluence than Odnoklassniki and Vkontaktnikov, also hinting that you are also cool because you know 20 words in English? Why do I need to be on LinkedIn, especially if the direct contacts of the person I need are known without it?
After all, there were and there are forums, and they are quite convenient. Have something to say? Write to the whole world, they will hear you. There were blogs, which, by the way, were not much technically (and, therefore, in terms of capabilities) differed from the forums. No, I, of course, go to LiveJournal, for example, Zyalt and Doli, have been to Navalny a couple of times, I also visit extremely obscure and unknown pages, getting links to them in Skype or another PM, I find them in the end. . But all the same thing was and is on the forums, so I constantly go to very popular forums, I get links to low-polar forums in the PM, and sometimes I find a forum exotics with search, in the existence of which I still believe with varying success. That is, I solve all the problems I have with the usual means, not complex, because I don’t use the newest mulks.
')
This is about personalities. But after all, corporations and the state have now paid attention to new media. More precisely, they noticed about 2-3 years ago, but now they have built a social network to the rank of "mandatory toys." It is also not a tool that recognizes any business segment in any country, but also seems like a decent gathering of people, which in theory can be of some benefit to business. Therefore, now that no cool company, so it has its channels (groups) in social networks. Moreover, the channels are opened according to the principle “so that everything is like that of a competitor, and better - cooler”. Thus, if we take now some business (to take the same cellular communication and mobile Internet access), then we are all painfully represented in social networks. I wondered this question a long time ago, but just recently received first-hand answers. And this answer coincided with the fact that it assumed that “our audience is also there”. Someone thinks that in the new media one can find 50 new customers, others say that there are thousands, and in practice there are cases of multi-million communities. That is, companies believe that by participating in social networks they increase their presence. Is it really so? Do those who sit in social networks do not take the subway (or do not move by car), cover their ears in public places, do not twist their heads around during hiking, do not watch television, or, finally, cut down all banners and text advertising in search engines? Is this audience so new, that is, not intersecting with anyone? Or maybe the same audience has long been “piled up”?
In addition, in my opinion, new media have become quite established platforms for the promotion of goods and services. If you and your competitors are “already there,” what is unusual about your particular activity aimed at being on social networks? Yes, dear advertiser or PR company ABC, I appeal to you . So you ask this question yourself. As I thought: you are there, and your competitors are there. A similar situation is observed with traditional carriers of information and advertising and other veiled informational messages to the masses. And then an interesting conflict arises - each company decides for itself where this year they will convey their message to the audience. Someone loves the subway and hates the radio, someone loves contextual advertising on the Internet, and does not believe in the figures that TV claims, someone believes in the absolute relevance of paper media, but never participates in sponsorship projects. There are a lot of options. But the paradox is that everyone climbs into new media regardless of who and how believes in the effectiveness of truly classic sites that have passed the test of time.
Taking into account the two facts voiced above (potentially significantly intersecting the audiences of classic media and new media, as well as a lack of attention to many media tested by time), one can make a simple assumption - aren't new media a trivial "mulk"? Tribute to fashion or herd instinct, if you like? Are new media a waste of time and company money for maintaining new media specialists, maintaining official channels, organizing offline meetings with social activists, and finally, arranging a string of colored buttons on the site (which, by the way, Personally, I think immoral in terms of design and usability)?
If we merge all the questions put to the eminent community into one, then it sounds like this - but have we not been carried away by new media?
I have long been tormented by the question - is it necessary to be an active participant in social networks? Do I need to have an account on Twitter just because a friend has it, and he wrote right there from the forest that he collected 5 mushrooms, does he need to register on Facebook just because he is considered a haven for an advanced Russian IT audience with incomes above average , do you need to “like” for every occasion and without, showing your attitude? And so on - a list of similar questions can be extended to at least another ten points. Why do I need to have an account in social networks? To quickly find out that a person is having lunch in France? Why do I need Odnoklassniki and VKontakte if I feel myself an element of the incubator masses whose interests do not extend beyond the evening drinks, and the top three of the ultimate dreams include the iPhone 4 and a pumped-out Cayenne class car? Why do I need Facebook? To feel an element of a similar web, but only [of type] with somewhat greater affluence than Odnoklassniki and Vkontaktnikov, also hinting that you are also cool because you know 20 words in English? Why do I need to be on LinkedIn, especially if the direct contacts of the person I need are known without it?
After all, there were and there are forums, and they are quite convenient. Have something to say? Write to the whole world, they will hear you. There were blogs, which, by the way, were not much technically (and, therefore, in terms of capabilities) differed from the forums. No, I, of course, go to LiveJournal, for example, Zyalt and Doli, have been to Navalny a couple of times, I also visit extremely obscure and unknown pages, getting links to them in Skype or another PM, I find them in the end. . But all the same thing was and is on the forums, so I constantly go to very popular forums, I get links to low-polar forums in the PM, and sometimes I find a forum exotics with search, in the existence of which I still believe with varying success. That is, I solve all the problems I have with the usual means, not complex, because I don’t use the newest mulks.
')
This is about personalities. But after all, corporations and the state have now paid attention to new media. More precisely, they noticed about 2-3 years ago, but now they have built a social network to the rank of "mandatory toys." It is also not a tool that recognizes any business segment in any country, but also seems like a decent gathering of people, which in theory can be of some benefit to business. Therefore, now that no cool company, so it has its channels (groups) in social networks. Moreover, the channels are opened according to the principle “so that everything is like that of a competitor, and better - cooler”. Thus, if we take now some business (to take the same cellular communication and mobile Internet access), then we are all painfully represented in social networks. I wondered this question a long time ago, but just recently received first-hand answers. And this answer coincided with the fact that it assumed that “our audience is also there”. Someone thinks that in the new media one can find 50 new customers, others say that there are thousands, and in practice there are cases of multi-million communities. That is, companies believe that by participating in social networks they increase their presence. Is it really so? Do those who sit in social networks do not take the subway (or do not move by car), cover their ears in public places, do not twist their heads around during hiking, do not watch television, or, finally, cut down all banners and text advertising in search engines? Is this audience so new, that is, not intersecting with anyone? Or maybe the same audience has long been “piled up”?
In addition, in my opinion, new media have become quite established platforms for the promotion of goods and services. If you and your competitors are “already there,” what is unusual about your particular activity aimed at being on social networks? Yes, dear advertiser or PR company ABC, I appeal to you . So you ask this question yourself. As I thought: you are there, and your competitors are there. A similar situation is observed with traditional carriers of information and advertising and other veiled informational messages to the masses. And then an interesting conflict arises - each company decides for itself where this year they will convey their message to the audience. Someone loves the subway and hates the radio, someone loves contextual advertising on the Internet, and does not believe in the figures that TV claims, someone believes in the absolute relevance of paper media, but never participates in sponsorship projects. There are a lot of options. But the paradox is that everyone climbs into new media regardless of who and how believes in the effectiveness of truly classic sites that have passed the test of time.
Taking into account the two facts voiced above (potentially significantly intersecting the audiences of classic media and new media, as well as a lack of attention to many media tested by time), one can make a simple assumption - aren't new media a trivial "mulk"? Tribute to fashion or herd instinct, if you like? Are new media a waste of time and company money for maintaining new media specialists, maintaining official channels, organizing offline meetings with social activists, and finally, arranging a string of colored buttons on the site (which, by the way, Personally, I think immoral in terms of design and usability)?
If we merge all the questions put to the eminent community into one, then it sounds like this - but have we not been carried away by new media?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/121295/
All Articles