Social media improves your health?

According to an article on examiner.com, social media might actual be good for your health, or more accurately your social life. The article states that experts say the social benefits of Internet use will far outweigh the negatives over the next ten years. Online tools, such as e-mail and other social media outlets, provide "low friction" opportunities to interact.

"The Internet lowers traditional communications constraints of cost, geography, and time; and it supports the type of open information sharing that brings people together," the article written by Clifford Bryan states.

These findings were a result of a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project and Elon University's Imagining the Internet Center. After surveying 895 technology stakeholders and critics, it was found that 85 percent of respondents agree with the following statement:

"In 2020, when I look at the big picture and consider my personal friendships, marriage and other relationships, I see that the Internet has mostly been a positive force on my social world. And this will only grow more true in the future."

14 percent of respondents agreed with this statement:
"In 2020, when I look at the big picture and consider my personal friendships, marriage and other relationships, I see that the Internet has mostly been a negative force on my social world. And this will only grow more true in the future."

I guess these findings make sense. I have certainly been able to keep great social ties with the use of the Internet, but the Internet has been there since I was a kid, so I really don't know what it what like before we had it. I would say that social media has done wonders to keep in contact with friends, family, and colleagues and that will only increase over the next decade. Whether this "frictionless" social interaction improves our health, well we will have to wait about that one.

Read the entire article here http://bit.ly/aagUue

Clever advertisement in LA Times sparks controversy

Mysterious giant footprints are found on the beaches of
Southern California. The 'H' of the Hollywood sign has been knocked down, damaging several homes. Universal Studios Hollywood has been partially destroyed. These were all articles that ran in last Thursday's Los Angeles Times.

Well, they weren't exactly articles; rather fake ones created to advertise for the new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios, Hollywood. The print ad was a complete wrap around article that covered the LATExtra section of the newspaper.

What served as a clever and creative way to get the reader's attention has actually garnered criticism and protests. Los Angeles County supervisors are protesting the paper's ad section, saying that this particular ad harms the newspapers credibility.

Many readers felt that the ad was misleading, stating that they felt duped and can no longer trust the paper. One blogger argues that there is no question that the intent was to purposefully mislead readers into thinking something horrible has happened all over Southern California.

I disagree. The advertisement was clearly labeled as that, with a red "Advertisement" label on the top of every page of the advertisement.

This is what Los Angeles Times Publisher Eddy Hartenstein had to say:

"The Universal Studios Hollywood ad wrapping Thursday's LATExtra section met our advertising guidelines, including a large, red 'advertisement' notification on top of the page. Our readers understand the ad-supported economic model of our business, which allows us to provide the outstanding journalism they rely upon 24/7."

I understand that there is a certain level of ethics that many journalists follow and stress, and that this may seem like a breach of trust, however I don't really see that great of harm in the ad. With newspapers dwindling, the LA Times was just looking for a way to profit on the need advertisers have to break through the clutter. In my opinion the ad read as an ad.

This is just my opinion, what do you think?

Majority of companies have no social media plan!?!?

According to a new study from marketing firm Digital Brand Expressions only 41 percent of corporations have a strategic plan in place when it comes to their use of social media. Over 78 percent of the study's respondents use social media in their promotions, but many have not created a clear game plan or set of protocols for how to use social media sites.

"It's fairly well established that social media is a channel that businesses must participate in, leaving CEOs with the new challenge of planning and implementing brand aligned initiatives enterprise-wide," said Veronica Fielding, president and CEO of Digital Brand Expressions.

Of the companies that do have some kind of social media plan, only 69 percent have set up a tracking method to measure ROI of such activities and 71 percent plan for ongoing monitoring of brand reputation.

"This leaves the majority of organizations exposed to problems arising from employees saying the wrong things in the wrong ways to the wrong people at the wrong time," according to the report.

I guess this is where my fellow classmates and I come in once we get into the working world. I find this information interesting because those of us who have headed up the social media of on-campus organizations have has to create social media plans.

I have seen companies use their social media to effectively market themselves. LACMA, in my opinion, has done a great job at this, but not every product should get recognition through social media. It all depends on who your market is. I've seen companies just create a Facebook page for the sake of having one, but it seems out of place.

Social Media can be powerful, especially when the consumer can shape the brand of the compnay by using it. The company has to know how to use that to their benefit.