A number of years ago, Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod, both teachers in the US, created a video entitled Shift Happens; Did You Know? The themes of Did You Know? are global and designed to be relevant to schools and children around the world and to raise interesting topics of conversation around societal shifts largely driven by the adoption of internet protocol. The themes raised are relevant to a much wider audience than schools and children.
The video embedded below, created by Socialnomics09, youtube.com/user/Socialnomics09, follows a similar theme but investigates the reach and impact on societal shift of increasing usage of Social Media.
Enjoy.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Look after the sense and the pounds will look after themselves
In her ‘Stuff and Junk’ blog (http://tinyurl.com/nlmkad) Mandi Bateson, writing as mab397 highlighted the following oversight in a recent eDM she received from travel.com.au. Can you spot the not so deliberate mistake below:
Did you spot anything missing?
The destinations for these great deals perhaps?
$435 is a great price for a flight to some places but not if it’s to Brisbane! For the record, the cheapest flights in all of these offers were not for the airlines’ “hometown” and it took at least four clicks from the eDM to find a destination matching these fares.
As Mandi so ably points out, are we so quick to overcomplicate our campaigns that we miss the very, very basics?
Did you spot anything missing?The destinations for these great deals perhaps?
$435 is a great price for a flight to some places but not if it’s to Brisbane! For the record, the cheapest flights in all of these offers were not for the airlines’ “hometown” and it took at least four clicks from the eDM to find a destination matching these fares.
As Mandi so ably points out, are we so quick to overcomplicate our campaigns that we miss the very, very basics?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
3 seconds is all you get
It used to be, according to the traditional rule of thumb, you could divide newspaper readers into three distinct groups based on how they read each page. This rule of thumb was called the 30:3:30 rule and was based on the theory that people read each page of a newspaper in 30 seconds, three minutes or 30 minutes.
The theory followed that in 30 seconds all you could read on each page would be the headlines, that in three minutes you would read both the headlines and the first paragraph of each piece and that finally, in 30 minutes, you could read every word in every story on the page.
Now, with internet penetration levels at their current highs and with wall to wall access to broadcast media; newspapers do not break news anymore. They can report it and they can add significantly more analysis and editorial than their broadcast competitors – but in simple terms the old rule of thumb doesn’t hold up so well anymore for print media, so how well does it apply to our uptake and use of social media?
The first problem with a rule which has 30 seconds as it’s lowest time parameter is that in social media, 30 seconds is a long time. Consider Twitter for example where 30 seconds to read a tweet is a lifetime. In 30 seconds you could conceivably have read a post, retweeted it and moved on to check the footie scores.
So, for social media there’s a new rule: the 3:30:3 principle or that someone will spend three seconds reading a tweet; 30 seconds reading a blog post; or finally and as a maximum say three minutes following a link, responding to a post or starting a conversation.
In its simplest form, this principle promotes that you have to use language that will capture someone’s imagination in three seconds, encouraging them to want to know more, follow you, digg you, join as a fan or even simply entertain.
There are apparently more new words added to the English language each year than existed when Shakespeare was alive and with only three seconds to make a lasting impact we may well need to keep creating them.
The theory followed that in 30 seconds all you could read on each page would be the headlines, that in three minutes you would read both the headlines and the first paragraph of each piece and that finally, in 30 minutes, you could read every word in every story on the page.
Now, with internet penetration levels at their current highs and with wall to wall access to broadcast media; newspapers do not break news anymore. They can report it and they can add significantly more analysis and editorial than their broadcast competitors – but in simple terms the old rule of thumb doesn’t hold up so well anymore for print media, so how well does it apply to our uptake and use of social media?
The first problem with a rule which has 30 seconds as it’s lowest time parameter is that in social media, 30 seconds is a long time. Consider Twitter for example where 30 seconds to read a tweet is a lifetime. In 30 seconds you could conceivably have read a post, retweeted it and moved on to check the footie scores.
So, for social media there’s a new rule: the 3:30:3 principle or that someone will spend three seconds reading a tweet; 30 seconds reading a blog post; or finally and as a maximum say three minutes following a link, responding to a post or starting a conversation.
In its simplest form, this principle promotes that you have to use language that will capture someone’s imagination in three seconds, encouraging them to want to know more, follow you, digg you, join as a fan or even simply entertain.
There are apparently more new words added to the English language each year than existed when Shakespeare was alive and with only three seconds to make a lasting impact we may well need to keep creating them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
