"Buy the Way…" Insights on Integrated Marketing Communication

In the recent years with the advancements in IoT, there has been an explosion of devices that are not only an accessory or gadget but an extension of our everyday life. From wristbands, keyring, fitness trackers and watches to jewelry, all have which have been created to make our lives more convenient. According to Adam Herson business development director at Barclays Mobile Payments, believes the creation of flexible chips which are now embedded into jewelry is a game-changer as it creates a seamless integration for consumers.

According to a Gartner research, they are projecting that by 2020 21 billion devices will be linked to the internet and by 2021 sales of smartwatches will total approximately 21m units.  Majority of devices have been created as a payment mechanism creating an effortless reliant experience. Barclaycard is venturing into this endeavor by partnering with DCK Group and Tappy Technologies to transform fashionable jewelry into wearable contactless payment devices.

Lifesaving?

While the initial intent was payment, there has been an evolving trend that has focused on reshaping healthcare by assisting with some of the healthcare’s most significant problems. Healthcare providers that encourage patients to use wearable devices can collect data from patients allowing them to predict specific symptoms. Furthermore, companies like Apple are developing radical medical solutions like a noninvasive monitors glucose level system(CMG) to be used by their Apple Watch and tools that screen for various illnesses like Autism and Parkinsons.

Is my data safe?

As this new technology evolves and popularity increases, there are several concerns about data privacy and security breaches.  Who owns the data? What about if misplace my device? Is the cloud service provider responsible for securing my information or the vendor?  Who is accountable for creating governance and policies?

Picture this: You’re in the middle of an exciting yet long road trip to Las Vegas. Your phone dies and conveniently, your charger isn’t working. You know it’s a straight shot so you’re not concerned about GPS. You’re good on gas but you feel your stomach rumbling with fury because in a rush to make good timing, you failed to grab snacks for the trip. You notice you’re coming up on a small, unfamiliar town that you assume would have restaurant choices but how do you know for sure? You look up and see, “OldTimers Café – Voted the Best Brunch in Town, Exit 26 and turn right.”

Perhaps at this moment you let out a sigh of relief but do you stop to acknowledge the significance of this marketing communication channel? Probably not, but since you’re not currently in that position, let’s take a moment to show gratitude.  One of the oldest forms of marketing has saved you from wandering hungrily in a foreign town. Thank Goodness!

Ok, so that was a very specific scenario that probably wouldn’t happen to most but for the traveling consumer, where would we be without billboards? They not only add some color to the mundane road ahead but they necessarily advertise the things we might be interested in on our journey.

Traditional methods of marketing like print advertisements, newspapers, flyers, and billboards don’t get as much attention as they have in the past. As technology continues to grow smarter, the valuable role that billboards play isn’t acknowledged as much as it should be.  As a one-way form of advertising, many businesses have opted out of using billboards altogether as they assume them to be a thing of the past and would rather invest in more online and social advertisements as a means of connecting with and influencing their audience.

Billboard advertisements provide a unique way for businesses to market to their audience. These ads are unique in that they can be direct or share a thought provoking message. Primary Media shares why billboard advertising is and will always be an important form of marketing. For one, billboards are guaranteed to be seen. Depending on the image or words, the information on the billboard is immediately taken in by its audience. Billboards also help the target audience find the business because they generally incorporate some sort of quick instructions to their destination. “People are more likely to make their buying decisions in the car…” (Primary Media, n,d.). With that being said, as a business owner why not influence those who are already in motion and most likely to take their business to you?

Since smartphones are keeping people connected while away from home, consumers are spending more time traveling (Imagine Express, 2017). Everything from restaurants to medications and cars to toothpaste are advertised on billboards. Billboards are there to influence the traveling consumer and can do so in engaging ways. What would Times Square look like without all of those beautifully placed digital billboards? I never shop at American Eagle Outfitters but I have to admit that their bright billboard was intriguing enough to make me want to at least stop in to see what they had to offer.

The presentation of your billboard and where it is placed is going to get you the ultimate bang for your buck. Like most, I don’t pay attention to the billboards while in the city unless they incorporate some flashing lights or as my 7-year-old nephew would say, “something hanging off of it.” However, after driving for hours in the desert, I’m looking for any nearby signs of civilization. Billboards are indeed a current and effective method of marketing to those in need.

Billboards have definitely stepped their game up in terms of creativity and their ability to get their audience engaged and active. Not to mention the somewhat controversial billboards that have small cameras and collect data from those who pass by… but I digress.

So what do you think? Are billboards a dying breed of marketing or are they still worth the costly investment? Does it really matter where the billboard is placed (Interstate vs city freeways) or does the content of the billboard have the most influence?

References

Ember, S. (2016). See that billboard? It may see you, too. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/business/media/see-that-billboard-it-may-see-you-too.html

Imagine Express. (2017). How effective is billboard advertising? Retrieved from http://imagine-express.com/billboard-advertising-effective/

Morrissey, J. (2016). Look up: In the digital age, Billboards are far from dead. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/media/look-up-in-the-digital-age-billboards-are-far-from-dead.html

“Why Billboard Advertising is Important.” (n,d). Primary Media. Retrieved from https://www.primarymedia.com/about/why-billboard-advertising-is-important/

For centuries women, have been fighting to be treated equally and yet, in 2018, the war hasn’t been won. In elementary and high school I was deprived of any knowledge of the Woman Suffrage Movement which began in 1848 (Women’s Suffrage, n.d.). The fortunate opportunity came in a Public Campaigns class while doing my undergraduate degree.  I learned about pioneer crusaders like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony who helped pave the way for the Nineteenth Amendment to the constitution, granting American women the right to vote.

Although I learned about a lot through this campaign, there was still the question of color.  While women of all races have common political interests, the alliance of their movements has not always been easy.  It took an effort in researching black female leaders during the Women’s Suffrage Movement.  Black feminist writer Evette Dionne argues that prominent black leaders like Sojourner Truth and Frances Harper were left out of the Women’s Suffrage Movement.   Although it’s easy—and true— to say that racism might have split many women’s movements for many years.  After bearing witness to the effective Women’s March, it is evident that integrated marketing efforts are a primary influencer in women attaining a united front.

The Women’s March drew half a million women—from all backgrounds—to march in Washington and more than five million across the United States.  In fact, the organizers reported that marches took place across all seven continents, including Antarctica!  In analyzing the integrated marketing efforts of the Women’s March social media indeed had the strongest impact. The movement commenced with the creation of a Facebook event by Teresa Shook and soon led to similar pages being created by   Evvie Harmon, Fontaine Pearson, Breanne Butler, and New York fashion designer Bob Bland. To ensure the march was led by women of diverse races and backgrounds Tamika D. Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour were brought on to serve as co-chair alongside Bob Bland. Across their social media platforms partnerships were also forged with Planned Parenthood, the Natural Resources Defense Council, AFL–CIO, Amnesty International USA, the Mothers of the Movement, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Organization for Women, MoveOn.org, Human Rights Watch, Code Pink, Black Girls Rock!, the NAACP, the American Indian Movement, Emily’s List, Oxfam, Greenpeace USA, the League of Women Voters amongst several others.  Several celebrities political figures around the world endorsed and participated in the campaign including Ashley Judd, Senator Bernie Sanders, and John Legend.

The phrase “Me Too” was first created by Tarana Burke in 2006 on the then-popular social network site Myspace (thankfully she got the credit for doing so!).   Burke stated that in 1997 she encountered a young girl in Alabama who told her about being sexually abused by her mother’s boyfriend and at the time she wished she said “me too” to the young girl.  Fast forward to 2017, Alyssa Milano started the use of the hashtag #MeToo in response to the accusations against Harvey Weinstein (by Rose McGowan and Asia Argento) and many other public figures of sexual harassment/assault, and other abusive behavior.  If you have been using any form of media, you know this went viral and is still very much current—just two weeks ago Kate Upton said #metoo to guess co-founder Paul Marciano. The movement created more than a viral effect on social media platforms—Times Magazine dedicated their 2017 Person of the Year to the silence breakers—Rose McGowan created a documentary called Citizen Rose—Men like Liam Neeson started saying #MeToo—The #TimeUp movement was born.    This campaign all started with a hashtag and was integrated into several media platforms.  Sadly, to say as of December 2017, I too I’m saying #metoo. Had it not been for the dominance and diversification of this campaign I might not have had the courage to type this statement.

Fast-forward to 2018, and like Oprah said at the Golden Globes…the time is up! The movement is the next step to the #MeToo movement and has raised over 20 million dollars for its legal defense fund to defend women from all industries who have been victims of sexual abuse and systematic inequalities.  The #TimesUp movement dominated social media, and traditional media platforms during the Golden Globes.  Almost every single person attending the event wore black as part of the movement, and all the men wore pins saying “times up.”  There’s also “time up” apparel and accessories being sold in various mediums. When visiting the Times Up Website, the first thing one would notice in big bold letters is “Dear Sisters.” The reason I highlighted this is because it appears to me that there is now an alliance in women’s movement.  Social media and other integrated marketing efforts seem to be a primary influencer in women of all races and backgrounds coming together to advocate as one.  But will this sisterhood really affect change?

The other day, I was mindlessly going about my business when I received a Facebook notification on my phone. Someone I’ve never even spoken to in high school had commented on a post I shared prior.

This struck a nerve. When the hell did people become so damn opinionated that they feel the need to comment on a near stranger’s post? Obviously, the girl had cared enough that she couldn’t refrain herself!

What has social media done to us, what is it doing to us?!

The Beginning of a Chain Reaction

The emergence of digital technology has become the cornerstone of my (the millennial) generation. Social media, in particular, has facilitated the way we connect with each other, with organizations, and transformed the way we engage with information. We are more confident, self-expressive, and very socially aware. Thus, many are vocal and opinionated. At the same time, years of media priming have desensitized us and decreased our trust in the information we see on social media. It is safe to say that social media shapes the approaches that companies must adopt to reach us.

Initially, companies had to build a relationship with their consumers. More recently, to achieve this, they are also expected to be authentic, political, and socially active and responsible. Our social media dependency makes it increasingly difficult for marketers to reach us. In response, marketers are turning to Artificial Intelligence (AI) in an attempt to build a more personalized relationship with us.

Market research conducted by the Interactive Advertising Bureau and Winterberry Group earlier this month revealed: “artificial intelligence and blockchain technology are expected to become bigger priorities this year.” Marketers, publishers, and tech developers plan to occupy their time with AI-related functions such as: “cross-device audience recognition” and “predictive modeling and/ or segmentation.” Through digital channels, AI-powered bots and technology not only mine for our information by watching and recording our digital interactions but also learns to automate and improve itself through algorithms. Considering that social media and virtual assistants (a form of AI) have already penetrated our daily, personal and physical lives, this increased dependency on AI for personal data raises concerns surrounding privacy. And while the imminent dangers of AI don’t appear to exist beyond privacy issues, those who are more perceptive warn of more serious ramifications surrounding AI’s automation process and the fact that the Internet and such digital technology remain almost unregulated.

In The Past…

Both Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have warned us that while AI can save humanity, it can also be “our greatest existential threat.” If we fail to prepare for the pitfalls, not only are we facing the threat of “powerful autonomous weapons,” “new ways for the few to oppress the many,” and “economic disruption”, but “once it develops to the point that it can improve and replicate itself”, we are facing the impending doom that AI will supersede humanity and replace humans entirely. However far-fetched these scenarios seem, we have already entered into a threshold that allows AI to distort our reality and disrupt humanity.

You Guessed It, Fake News

As some have mentioned before me, a Buzzfeed article explains that”our platformed and algorithmically optimized world is vulnerable.” Platforms using AI to prioritize “clicks, shares, ads, and money over quality of information” has already facilitated misinformation campaigns, propaganda, and polarized opinions. The sophistication of AI has evolved the ability to make false information appear credible. It seamlessly actualized this previously implausible threat right under our nose, before we even realize it was even happening. However, fake news is only the beginning.

The article further explains, “this past summer, more than one million fake bot accounts flooded the FCC’s open comments system to ‘amplify the call to repeal net neutrality protections,'” thus “undermining the authenticity of the entire open comments system.” Additionally, people have begun adopting AI for audio and video manipulation to create realistic and believable video clips. Taken together, the probable dangers of AI become far more realistic, and its potential can be much more sinister. The lack of regulation puts us on the path towards laser phishing and diplomacy manipulation.

Laser phishing is essentially “using AI to scan things, like our social media presences, and craft false but believable messages from people we know.” The heightened use of AI has led some to believe that this is inevitable. Whereas, the fear with diplomacy manipulation is that these “increasingly believable AI-powered bots will be able to effectively compete with real humans for legislator and regulator attention because it will be too difficult to tell the difference.”

Is It AI Or Is It Us?

Some argue that the problem lies in the capitalistic nature of the tech industry. These people think that for AI to become catastrophic, as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking believe, it must demonstrate the ability to have insight—to recognize its own condition. Well news flash, IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED! The generative adversarial network (GAN) technology “is a neural network capable of learning without human supervision.” It has “‘imagination and introspection’ and ‘can tell how well the generator is doing without relying on human feedback.”

On the other hand, there are those who pledge only to use AI for good. However, without set boundaries in our capitalistic economy, it is difficult to distinguish what is ethical and what is not. I mean, is the way that marketers’ mine for our data ethical? Moreover, should the automatic abilities of AI fall into the wrong hands and be used to exploit our digital media consumption, the consequences could still be, if not even more disastrous. Like millennials to advertisements on social media, people may eventually stop paying attention to and become desensitized to the news, “and that fundamental level of informedness required for functional democracy becomes unstable.” Not so far off from Elon and Stephen’s fears now, is it?

The fact of the matter is that rapid advancements in technology have already made what seems impossible, a reality. While social media such as Facebook acts as a content accelerator, increased use of AI technology by even marketers bring these looming threats much closer to hand. Even those that were skeptics are now more receptive to these possibilities. Advisors urge that we must “seriously consider the implications” of our actions and “explore the worst-case scenarios.” It started with social media and marketing strategies; all it takes now is one wrong move.

So…

What are your thoughts on where we are headed? As marketers increase their use of AI to learn every detail of our lives, do you believe or agree with the fears surrounding AI? Should carefully thought out boundaries be set, to limit marketers use of AI to access our info/ target us? Should we, individually and as humanity, be more aware of our behaviors and monitor them?

Gold Medal Musings

I’m a huge fan of the Olympics and have been squeezing in nightly fixes between Commercial Kings episodes and coding analysis this month.  I love the talent and the passion; the dark horse victories and the photo finishes.  Four years+ of total dedication… and two-hundredths of a second can decide your medal fate.

Here are some random Olympic musings that tie to Marketing Communication and USC:

Olympic Ads

I’ve been watching the commercials with a newly 541-minted interest.  NBC reports that there’s still a gold medal market for Olympic advertising.  The network’s TV and digital ad sales topped $900 for the 2018 games, compared with $1.1 billion in revenue for the 2014 Sochi games (Flint, 2018).  So maybe a bronze.  I found this interesting… as of Feb. 9, NBC reported that new advertisers are still signing on for open TV spots that apparently NBC squirrels away just in case (Crupi, 2018).  It seems crazy to me that an advertiser would spend that kind of money on a last minute wait-and-watch plan

Interestingly, while 60% of this year’s Olympic ad revenue is from new advertisers, big names like Coca-Cola, General Motors and AT&T are spending less.  Procter and Gamble went so far as to say, “as a top sponsor since 2012, we have found ways in every Olympics to get more efficient and effective in building our brands” (Bruell, 2018). Hmm… wonder what that really means from the official sponsor of Moms everywhere?

Olympics viewership is down slightly this year.  The good news for NBC is that with the monumental changes in viewing habits over the past 4 years, that the ratings haven’t dropped any farther.  About 23 to 24 million viewers are tuning in each night, about 7% less than in 2014 (Bruell, 2018).

By the way, if you happen to work for United Healthcare, please let your marketing team know that the baby rash / dad falling on the roller skate commercial is getting really old.  For that kind of spend, I would have thought UHC would have a broader ad repertoire.

Fight On in Pyeongchang

While we are diligently completing our marketing research, some of our fellow USC Annenberg students are rink side.  The Trojan Network reaches far and wide and includes David Neal, 1978 USC graduate and EVP of NBC Olympics.  He started recruiting Olympic interns at the Annenberg School in 2008, and this year  15 of our fellow students are gaining solid gold internship experience in Pyeongchang.

And another cool tie, Annenberg Associate Professor Alan Abrahamson, is covering his tenth Olympic games. Abrahamson is a veteran sports writer, chief NBCOlympics columnist and official Olympic guru.  Follow him at @alanabrahamson on Twitter or at http://www.nbcolympics.com

Personal Reflections

I’m always intrigued to see the new Olympic sports that I didn’t even know are sports.    Have you seen team speed skating?  It’s like watching skaters in a house of mirrors.  Then there’s a motocross race on snowboards which looks like a Wii game.  The Big Air snowboarding is epic, but scary.

My absolute favorite thing about the Olympics are the athletes’ personal profiles.  It doesn’t matter if you’re watching a heart-tugging story about the Shib Sibs, the Nigerian bobsledders or a Canadian curler, the profiles invoke emotion and provide context.  It ties back to Brandon Rochon’s best branding advice … be storytellers!

As I write this, American women’s hockey team just clinched gold in a shootout.  The thrill of victory, indeed.

References:

Bruell, A. (2018, Feb. 8). “Big winter Olympic advertisers cut spending for 2018 games.”  The Wall Street Journal.  Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-winter-olympic-advertisers-cut-spending-for-2018-games-1518216902

Crupi, A. (2018, Feb. 13). “As Olympics ratings defy expectations, NBC frees up rainy-day ad inventory.  AdAge.  Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/special-report-the-olympics/nbc-olympics-ratings-defy-expectations/312364/

Flint, J. (2018, Feb. 16). “Olympics audience shrinks, but NBC touts win.” Wall Street Journal.  Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/olympics-audience-shrinks-but-nbc-touts-win-1518809369?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=4

Wolfson, S. (2018, Feb. 8). “USC Annenberg interns to take part in Winter Olympic games for the first time.”  USC News.  Retrieved from https://news.usc.edu/136034/usc-annenberg-interns-to-take-part-in-winter-olympic-games-for-the-first-time/

We’re almost two weeks into the 2018 Winter Olympics. Being held in Pyeongchang, South Korea, the 2018 Winter Olympics kicked off with an opening ceremony on February 9^th and the games will go on until February 25^th. Throughout this period, there will be 2,952 athletes from 92 different nations participating in 102 events in fifteen sports. With so many athletes being exposed on television and online worldwide, you would think it would be another great opportunity for brands for post-Super Bowl. The truth is: Not so much.

Have you ever heard of Rule 40? Rule 40  is a by-law in the Olympic Charter that restricts unofficial Olympic sponsor brands from making public references about the Olympics. The rule was introduced by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)  “to preserve the unique nature of the Olympic games by preventing over-commercialization and to protect Olympic sponsors” (Chavez, 2016). Furthermore, Rule 40 has a blackout period (nine days prior to the Opening Ceremony until three days after the Closing Ceremony of the Olympic Games) where athletes, trainers, coaches and Olympic officials are not allowed to use their names or interact with unofficial sponsors for advertising purposes.

An article in Adweek (2018) illustrates the condensed version of Rule 40 and informs the do’s and don’ts of the athletes, official sponsor brands, and non-official sponsors. For instance, athletes are able to share their experiences at the games through social media channels and appear in generic ads for the brands that sponsor them. However, they are not allowed to mention any brand sponsors or organizations, or wear any branded apparel that is not official on Olympics property. Only brands that have official partnerships for the Olympics could advertise, mention Olympic-related terms on Social Media, and supply their goods/services within the Olympic venue. For 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Games, these official sponsor brands include GE, Coca-Cola, Visa, McDonald’s and The North Face. Other unofficial brands cannot engage in any kind of marketing that is Olympic-related on any type of media, and also cannot use certain terms depending on context such as:

• Olympics
• Olympic Games
• Olympiads
• Victory
• Games
• Medal
• Bronze
• Silver
• Gold
• Pyeonchang

Images and videos related to the games are also banned. Look like IOC is preventing the best possible things that marketers need to do to promote their brands.

What is your opinion on the Rule 40 and its circumstances? Do you have any ideas for getting around IOC’s promotional restrictions?

References

Kay, A. (2018, Feb. 9). Pyeongchang Winter Olympics 2018: Schedule, gold medal odds, expert picks and more. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkay/2018/02/09/winter-olympics-2018-complete-pyeongchang-dates-schedule-gold-medal-odds-expert-picks-and-more/#5722aca163e6

McCluskey, M. (2018, Feb. 10). Here’s how many atheletes are competing in the 2018 Winter Olympics. Time Online. Retrieved from http://time.com/5142791/olympics-2018-number-of-athletes-countries/

On February 14, 2018, a former student opened fire at a Florida high school, fatally shooting 17 people and injuring dozens. As it frequently happens after a tragic shooting, many students, educators, and parents are currently urging lawmakers to tighten access to guns in the United States. Now, this post is not meant to open a debate about gun control; however, as marketers, do we have an ethical responsibility when advertising a product that many believe to be a problem in our society? Is there a way to market guns while being sensitive to the current societal climate?

One of the most frequently used marketing tool for gun manufacturers is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is often the center of the gun control debate, and marketers have also used it to sell its products. Politics aside, this is an effective marketing–who can argue with the Constitution? Marketing a product because it is the consumer’s right to own it is personalized and effective in reaching a large group of audience.

Some firearms companies such as Keystone Sporting Arms sell long guns specifically manufactured for children and teenagers, with tagline such as “Start Them Young” and “My First Rifle.” While some may question whether children should have any access–controlled or not–what is interesting here is that guns are marketed as a part of life, even for children, to stay safe and protected from outside harm.

What could be troubling is that organizations such as The National Shooting Sports Foundation specifically target children, with its specific recommendation: “To help hunting and target shooting get a head start over other activities, stakeholders such as managers and manufacturers should target programs toward youth 12 years old and younger. This is the time that youth are being targeted with competing activities” (North, 2016). As marketers, the request by our clients tread on the moral grey area here, especially after a shooting tragedy.

On the other hand, there are some clearly problematic gun advertising. In addition to the Second Amendment, another popular theme is male masculinity.
   

These advertisements imply that owning a gun equates to male masculinity. Although the FN gun advertisement does not specifically say that owning a gun means manliness, it portraits gun ownership as a necessity to protect his defenseless wife and daughter. In addition to these traditional print ads, gun manufacturers are also enjoying the rise of social media marketing, with accounts such as @GunsDaily with 1.7 million followers. These platforms have given gun manufacturers a new platform to reach their target audiences directly. On the other hand, social media is also fueling the gun control movement, as it is easier to spread its message and organize rallies. Survivors of the recent Florida shootings announced a peaceful march to advocate for tighter gun control, named “March for Our Lives,” supported by the same organization from the widely popular Women’s March (Scanlan, 2018). Both sides of the gun debate have utilized the social media platform to advocate for their causes. However, as marketers, where do we stand? Do we stay out of the gun debate? Or do we have the moral obligation to be sensitive of the social climate and “read the room” when engaging with a product that may be controversial?

References

North, Anna. (February 19, 2016). Marketing Guns to Children. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/marketing-guns-to-children/

Scanlan Quinn. (February 18, 2018). Florida teen shooting survivors announce “March for Our Lives” demonstration in D.C. ABC 7 News. Retrieved from http://abc7.com/florida-shooting-survivors-announce-march-for-our-lives/3104170/

Holiday shopping records were broken as Americans purchased more than ever before from November 1 to December 24, 2017 (Manfredi, 2018). The increase of five percent over the previous year was the largest increase percentage wise since 2011 as the economy began to recover from the downfall of 2008-2011 (Manfredi, 2018).

As reported by Adobe Analytics, over 54% of all visits during the holidays came from either smartphones or tablets (Molla, 2017). This marks the first time ever that mobile devices were used more than desktop computers (Manfredi, 2018). As illustrated by the graphs, according to Google, the gap between making purchases on mobile versus desktop is closing.

This trend of increasing use of mobile phones and tablets has resulted in the increased mobile advertising spend for Google shopping, especially among retailers (Manfredi, 2018). Mobile shopping was anticipated to account for at least 34% of all online purchase revenues, 4% higher than the previous year (Molla, 2017).  As online revenue increased to over $107.4 billion, mobile only increased its share that much more (Molla, 2017).

As the first quarter of 2018 is winding down, retailers especially should be planning and adjusting their strategies to include how to capitalize on the growing channel that is one of the most personal device, the mobile phone.

References:

Manfredi, R., (2018). 2017 Holiday shopping goes mobile. Retrieved February 14, 2018 from https://mgage.com/blog/2017-holiday-shopping-season-goes-mobile/

Molla, R., (2017). For the first time, more people will do their holiday shopping on mobile than desktop. Retreived February 14, 2018 from https://www.recode.net/2017/11/2/16582034/holiday-shopping-mobile-desktop-online-revenue-retail

(Huffington Post, 2016)

For several years now, Facebook has used an algorithm to sort how posts appear in a given user’s News Feed. This means that instead of showing posts in reverse-chronological order, the way Twitter does, Facebook’s algorithm decides whether a certain post should be quickly buried or whether it should stay near the top of a user’s News Feed even as new posts vie for attention. Learning to game this algorithm has long been of interest to advertisers, content creators, and other organizations who maintain a presence on Facebook and want their links and posts to be viewed as much as possible.

A recent Buzzfeed article, “How I Cracked Facebook’s New Algorithm And Tortured My Friends”, shows that it’s possible to keep a post at the top of someone’s Facebook feed for weeks on end simply by generating a lot of comments on it. The article’s author did this by posting a link to a particularly obnoxious video, which prompted her friends to comment about how awful it was, but the Facebook algorithm took these comments to mean that the video was discussion-worthy, and that more people should see it. The longer this awful video stayed at the top of her friends’ News Feeds, the more annoyed they grew, prompting even more engagement to trick the algorithm into thinking it was relevant.

While this may seem like a fun way to prank your friends, it has some profound implications for the way Facebook affects communication. First, it can amplify the influence of people who already have a wide circle of friends – someone with a thousand friends can more easily generate a lot of comments and keep her posts visible, while someone with a few dozen friends might struggle to be noticed by them. This exact situation happened with tragic results to one user who posted that he was in the hospital recently, but died before any of his friends saw the update in their feed.

Beyond disrupting personal relationships this way, the flaws in Facebook’s algorithmic sorting open the door for large-scale manipulation. As Phil notes in a recent post on this blog, fake news is a real problem, and the tools for pushing misleading posts to the forefront are getting easier to use.

A return to a purely chronological News Feed seems like the most intuitive solution – after all, most real life conversations aren’t constantly interrupted by one party bringing up the same topic every day for weeks on end – but this might not work well for people who don’t log in very often. Facebook has some business reasons for its algorithm being the way it is, but as communications students, the effect it has on discourse is worrying, whether it means breaking down communication between friends or reducing the public’s ability to responsibly inform itself.

References

Harsh, A. (2016). Facebook Replaced Journalists With An Algorithm And We Are To Blame. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-replaced-journalists-with-an-algorithm-and_us_57c4fbcae4b024fca58cc9db

Notopoulos, K. (2018). How I Cracked Facebook’s New Algorithm And Tortured My Friends. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/how-i-cracked-facebooks-new-algorithm-and-tortured-my

Robertson, A. (2017). What happens when Facebook doesn’t tell you a friend has died? Retrieved February 17, 2018, from https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/19/16796078/facebook-friend-death-post-algorithm-problems

Warzel, C. (2018). He Predicted The 2016 Fake News Crisis. Now He’s Worried About An Information Apocalypse. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/the-terrifying-future-of-fake-news