Once again social networks are taking over. The video and tech company Unruly released that Millennials (young adults in the 2000) are more likely to tune into to a TV show when promoted on social media.
In Adam Flomenbaum’s article on LostRemote, explains that although these Millennials are more likely to tune in after seeing a show promoted on social media, they are less likely to be the ones sharing the clips. This is huge for TV marketers. If they start promoting their shows through trials or providing clips of the show, they can raise their ratings. Unruly’s report states, “80% of Millennials will tune into a TV show if someone on their social networks shares a clip or trailer of the show.”
As social networks continue to become a huge part of life, more companies need to take advantage of these opportunities. More and more people are starting to watch things on their phones, laptops and tablets. Now with the ability to see how many times a promo is shared, that will help marketers figure out how popular it could be before the show is released.
I have personally found myself watching more shows after seeing trailers and clips online. It gives a little insight as to what I’m going to be watching before the show airs. I think this is a great way to market new shows and more companies should use this to their advantage.
Here is an example of what got Millennials to start watching Jimmy Kimmel Live!
AJ+ created a mobile army by having their journalists record the riots in Baltimore on their phones and posting them live to social media. We have been talking all semester long about building audience engagement and it seems that in Shadi Rahimi’s article on Poynter, AJ+ has begun something revolutionary.
AJ+ went straight to the riots in Baltimore in order to report what was happening. Instead of taking a camera crew and a traditional reporter, they got right into the center of the action and recorded it all with a phone. Reporters published their content immediately to Twitter, Facebook and YouTube and broke records on delivering breaking news first. They are starting to pave the way for the future of journalism when it comes to on scene reporting.
As rapidly as the nation found out about Freddie Gray, riots started to take over the city. From the looks of video footage on news channels and uploaded YouTube videos, it was almost too dangerous to send in traditional reporters. Everyone wanted to know what was happening in Baltimore right then and there, and AJ+ gave that to their audience. Rahimi stated in her article, that mobile reporting directly engages with their audience which increases their audience base.
I think this was a fantastic way to report on what was happening in Baltimore. You can see from a lot of the footage on various social media sources how real this content was. Not only will this give the public the ability to view breaking news almost instantaneously, it will keep reporters a lot safer.
Twitter is trying to make abusive content disappear once and for all. In Andy Campbell’s article on the Huffington Post, he explains the course of action that Twitter is taking in their policy change.
Twitter is trying to create a system where content is flagged and deleted when it is abusive or an attempt at harassment. Online bullying has become huge as social media grows, and thus far, it has been hard to monitor the problem. Many social media sites constantly have users abusing the initial policies because it has been hard to control. Now that Twitter is flagging content and deleting it, this might help solve the problem across the board.
The approach the site is using is flagging the abusers content and locking their account for a certain period of time as a “punishment.” Although this is online, this is almost like a childhood punishment of getting something taken away after you misbehave. They are also asking user who abuse the site to delete the tweet that was flagged. I think this is an interesting way to get things going.
I really hope that this tactic works and is applied to other social media sites. Most abusers will get so frustrated with this form of punishment, which might stop using the site all together, but I don’t think it will be affected that much. Overall, it’s simple yet affective and will end up working in the long run. It’s about time that we figure something out to help stop harassment online.
This past Thursday, Instagram revamped it’s guidelines pertaining to nudity and harassment. Mashable’s Ariel Bogle gives the statement made by Instagram on what they are allowing to be shown on the app. In the past, there has been controversy over removal of photos from Instagram due to their guidelines.
When it comes to social media, most users feel that they have the right to post whatever they please. When it comes to nudity, most sites want to prohibit their users from posting anything that has to do with private body parts. As technology continues to grow, it is important that such guidelines are re-addressed or continue to stay the same. Instagram wants it’s user to keep it as PG-13 as possible, but pictures of breastfeeding and pictures of paintings or sculptures with nudity in them are allowed.
It is interesting how appalled some users have become from their nude photos being taken down by the app. Most of the guidelines are there to protect users from getting harassed and also, to keep the app as clean as possible. Instagram has made some changes to their guidelines regarding posting about nudity, but have stuck to most of their past guidelines. It shouldn’t come as a shock to users that nothing was drastically changed.
In my opinion, I feel that many of the people that post on social media don’t realize that what they post now can be found in the future. I think it is smart that Instagram kept with their initial guidelines of prohibiting nudity. If someone posts a nude photo in their early adult years and tries to find a job later in life, most likely that photo will be found and used against them. More people need to be smart about what they post and I hope that Instagram continues to prohibit such things.
Being a big Bravo fan, it was exciting to hear that things are going well for them on their website! By relaunching their website, Bravo was able to attract more people to their site and stay on it to watch video and contribute to social sharing.
Bravo TV relaunched their website in order to gain more traction and viewers. In Adam Flomenbaum’s article “BravoTV.com Relaunch is Quickly Paying Off,” on LostRemote, he explains how much their relaunch has helped them. Flomenbaum states “In Q1 2015, Bravo Digital Media recorded its highest total visit and video stream numbers across platforms.” This is a huge news as other TV channels will start to recognize the success of the relaunch and will now have to compete with this site.
As more and more people have been turning to the internet to stream their favorite shows, I think it was smart on Bravo’s part to recognize this and try to get ahead of the game. Flomenbaum states in his article, “Q1 monthly visits were up 39 percent compared to Q4 2014, while average monthly video streams were up 29 percent compared to Q4 numbers.” This increase shows how significant this change is. The fact that more website have not duplicated this process yet is interesting.
All in all, I think that this was the best move that Bravo could’ve made. I have personally started watching my favorite shows on this website a couple of months ago, not knowing about the relaunch. I have found it to be very convenient and functional and almost would rather watch on their website than on actual TV. I hope that other channels recognize this and start take on some of the characteristics of Bravo’s new site as well.
You thought you liked Netflix before, but now the popular steam is on the rise of having a library filled with original content. Lost Remote‘s Karen Fratti gushes over the new series on Netflix “The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” created by Tina Fey. As Netflix creates new series, they have more and more people switching over from other accounts such HBO and Hulu to Netflix.
TV keeps producing the same types of shows over and over and it gets to be boring. People want to watch more interesting shows that don’t bleep out profanity and have more risqué ratings in order to entertain them. There are more and more people streaming there favorites shows online rather than watching them on TV during their air dates. People don’t have time to tune in on their favorite show during the date and time it’s released, so they turn to the Internet.
Netflix has taken this golden opportunity and use this to its advantage to accommodate their audience and get more and more accounts. It will be interesting to see how many people within the next year or so, switch completely over to Netflix as more original series start to begin. The accessibility of the Internet along with being able to watch on your own time schedule has attracted many users already. What will continue to up the ante for this site will be creating more shows viewers want to watch.
I have a lot of friends who don’t pay for cable anymore and just stream Netflix off of their computer onto their TV’s. I think this is more affordable for people as Netflix continues to get more movies and shows added to their library. I don’t think cable will be obsolete any time soon, but I do think that more people will stream Netflix off of their smart TV’s and computers in order to watch their shows. I might follow suit of what my friends are doing and just purchase an Internet package and stream all my shows offline as well.
Here is a sneak peak of the new series “The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt”:
On the recent cover of TIME Magazine, it seems as though Hillary Clinton has horns sticking out of her head. Poynter’s Chris Thompson talks about the resemblance to devil horns coming from the M in TIME in his article “Did Time Magazine Put Devil Horns on Hillary Clinton?” Zeke Miller, a reporter of TIME tweeted that staffers in the office were discussing the cover and stated: “Actual discussion in the TIME office: ‘That’s not the way the horns would be.’”
By the tweet from the staffer, it hard to think that his is coincidental. There might be a hidden message that TIMEis trying to send whether or not “That’s not the way the horns would be.” If you a reader of the magazine, it is important to note that the title of the magazine seems to never move from the center and top of the cover. This is an important factor when considering whether or not they did this on purpose, but it still causes some controversy.
When creating a cover for a well known magazine such as TIME, I think that in order to avoid an issue like this, the editors and photojournalists would try to move things around on the cover. Maybe making Hillary off-center or making the image a little smaller and giving her some head room would defuse the situation. It’s interesting to note that Time did state that they have done this now 34 times on their magazine cover.
It’s really hard to have an opinion about this topic. I think that the magazine should’ve moved things around in order to avoid this discussion, but maybe that’s exactly what they wanted. TIME also could be too set on where they want the title to be, so regardless of who is on the cover, they truly look past the M looking like devil horn’s. Even though this is a recurring thing, if you look at the list of past covers of whom this has been done to, it seems that there is not as much of a coincidence.
Here is Time’s list of 34 covers with devil horns:
During the 58th Annual World Press Photo competition, 22% of contestants were disqualified due to enhancing photos that were submitted to the contest. In Kenneth Irby’s article posted on Poynter, he discusses the issues that are involved with photojournalism ethics. World Press Photo (WPP) is contemplating what issues need to be identified and what sort of regulations need to be applied in order to maintain basic ethics of photojournalism.
In 2015, photoshop is no big secret when it comes to photos. We never really know what photo’s are truly real and what has been enhanced to make the photo look real. I find that this is important to photojournalism, because if there is freedom to editing original photos broadcast them in the media, how can the audience truly believe what they are seeing is the actual thing. The audience constantly has to question whether a photo is real or not because of the technology we have today.
I think it is interesting that there was total shock when WPP found out that their participants were enhancing their photos. Although the competition agreements clearly stated there should be no altering of photos, it seems as if they should know better. When photo’s are enhanced constantly, it is hard to resist trying to enhance your work even slightly. We live in world where we have made it ok to fix things because we have the tools and technology to do it. Once we give that type of power to people, it’s very hard to stop it.
I do not agree at all with what the artists did to their photo’s. Seeing as they signed off on the terms of agreement, which stated not to tamper with original photos, however, I am not surprised t here was enhancements. I wish we could still have contests that were purely works of art and photojournalists didn’t have to feel the pressure of enhancing their photos in order to win or be recognized. I find it sad that these simple ethics are not instilled with such professionals.
To see more photo winners of the World Press Photo competition go to:
On Monday, Feb. 23, Keith Olbermann started a rant on twitter against Penn State students after being sent a link to a cancer fundraiser. Poynter’s Benjamin Mullin writes in his article that since the rant, Olbermann has been suspended from his show on ESPN for the week.
I thought this was very important to cover because it just goes to show, once you are in the public eye you cannot act any bit out of line. Being a broadcaster, Olbermann has made himself known to the public, creating a reputation for himself. Since he is part of ESPN, anything he says or does would show some reflection on the company. ESPN doesn’t want the public to think poorly of them even though it was a personal remark on behalf of one of their broadcasters.
I think it’s interesting that Olbermann continued to go on and on with something that was so insignificant to his life. I’m sure he gets tweeted at on a daily basis with all kinds of comments, so to go off on something so simple was a mistake and he should know better. Olbermann did say that he was calling the person he was tweeting at “pitiful” but something like this pops up in the media, words get twisted and then he was hit for calling the fundraiser”pitiful.”
Although, this had nothing to do directly with the station, I think ESPN did the right thing. When you are a big name in a big broadcast industry you have to watch every little thing that you say. Olbermann should be suspended for the week due to his rant. He is representing a big company that has a lot of credibility. These comments came from his own personal account, but anything he does and says will reflect badly on ESPN by association.