Here are your questions for Chapters 6 and 7:
1. What do you think of the concept of Social Schizophrenia? Where do you see evidence of it?
2. Chapter 6 gives several examples of companies and teams that have mandated access or place restrictions on how employees and team members can post or what can be said. How far is too far on the part of these companies? What should be the balance between personal freedom and brand respresentation?
3. Social Schizophrenia occurs in companies too. Why do businesses have such difficulty with the "one message"?
4. What made the Fantasy Football Today different in format? What about the way the show was monetized, how was that a departure from the traditional structure? Why did it work where the CNET show did not?
5. Why was the Super Fan sweepstakes such an effective campaign?
In regards to the first question, I believe in it, and I think it exists practically everywhere. It obviously is most evident in the social media realm- people can exploit anything and everything they want about themselves whether it's accurate or fictional. I especially agree with Erik when he mentions in Ch 6 about how we've let forms of art such as music, theater, sports, etc help us let go from preventative and 'braggadocian' behavior. My example would be all of the concerts and festivals I attend. The crowd there is so wild- the way the act, dress, and interact. It's funny to imagine that guy with frizzy dreads cleaning up and going to work all day, or the girl with the mix-match belly top, peasant skirt and tattoos all over her body to be taken seriously in the business world. However I know they all have different personas outside their recreational leisure time.
ReplyDeleteRegarding question two, I feel that people need to be aware of what they are saying on social media networks. Whether people like it or not they are representing their company or team and anything they say or do can reflect badly for an organization. This is shown with the University of Texas lineman, I understand they not everyone is the same and doesn't agree with a decision, but the way he went about saying what he did was extremely inappropriate. I feel where teams and companies are taking it too far is making you friend them on Facebook or the new thing where they are wanting a person to give them their password so they can look at your page. This to me is an invasion of privacy. I do understand that you do want someone to represent you in a good manner, so having them set the profile to private and wanting them to clean up what they have to say and show is not asking too much.
ReplyDelete1. What do you think of the concept of Social Schizophrenia? Where do you see evidence of it?
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe it exists and we are surrounded by it everyday. There are so many contradicting elements in life that distract us from something one way or another.Social Schizophrenia to me means having an inconsistent approach to things. For example, I could expose my self to a ton of different things but still be stuck on one point of view or open up to those point of views. In chapter 6 he talks about how we let certain entertainment forces, art, music, etc allow us to let go and act in certain ways we would not have before. I recently went to a club and let loose and I feel social schizophrenia had a good deal to do with it because if my co- workers were there I probably would have not acted so freely.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of social schizophrenia is found all over where social media is used. More often than not people feel like they have some one looking over their shoulder. Nothing is ever hidden and what a person posts can be used against them. There is no escaping the lens of social media. Many people are aware of this but some suffer from the consequences for their ignorance. Companies too suffer from social schizophrenia as they usually have several departments to satisfy with their social media postings. This will usually lead to a lot of information with a lot of different themes and messages when it should be centered on one main message. This will lead to a lot of confused consumers/followers and will not allow the company to fully engage with their audience. I think the Superfan campaign was a success because ESPN was able to get such a profound response from their fans to become a super fan blogger for their favorite team. Another reason is because the fans were willing to do the social media blog for free. It was also a success because the fans that read the blogs could identify and relate to the fan that was writing the blog for that particular team.
ReplyDelete1. Social schizophrenia is a very interesting concept, new to me since reading ch.6. Once I understood just hat it was, i have to say that i completely agree with it. I know that I personally behave very differently at work and with certain friends than I do with others and my family. I believe a huge example of this is with Disney channel stars today. A lot of them get heavy backlash for being "bad kids" off camera, but who can uphold the "golden child" standard all the time? Social media has ruined their ability to become schizophrenic and be normal people.
ReplyDeleteWhat is most interesting to me is the generational gap the book briefly points out that it has created. Since we are part of the divide that still conducts themselves differently in front of various people, what kind of future can we expect from those who conduct themselves one way or another all the time and basically say to the world, "This is me all the time, i dont care who is watching". This chapter truly makes me think about things differently!
What do you think of the concept of Social Schizophrenia? Where do you see evidence of it?
ReplyDeleteI see Social Schizophrenia everywhere, including in my own life. This social phenomenon is almost forced upon people. Many of the social networks have a very specific demographic and lend themselves to sharing a certain kind of material. The social networks are in a sense molding us into the user they think we should be. However, all the networks we are on are molding us into a different user for each network. I think this concept Social Schizophrenia is a valid one that allows users to adapt to their different audiences.
I see evidence of Social Schizophrenia in my own life. The Sarah that is on Facebook and at work is a censored version of Sarah. As “sad” as it is that I could lose my job over expressing myself online, I also think it is good for people to have different personalities online as they do in real life. I think people take the internet too lightly and need to be more cautious when posting online. I think it is scary how much people are willing to share with literally the entire world. I think it is good for social networks to persuade us inot sharing material that is only suitable for some audiences.
In regards to question 5, the Super Fan sweepstakes was such an effective campaign because ESPN has such a loyal viewer base. They executed it in such a good way because they had people submit videos, showed them on the air, and found people that would be willing to work for free. They directly interacted with the applicants throughout the entire process from choosing the criteria when submitting an application to who the lucky 32 Super Fans would be. ESPN was able to get the applicants to donate to a great charity, get people to promote the team and company for free, and they knew these Super Fans would spread the word and increase the listener base for the podcasts of each team. Based on the reading, it seemed like this whole selection process took some time so this really only helped ESPN because they were probably receiving application after application and had thousands of people talking about being a Super Fan for months. This whole campaign probably helped ESPN build brand awareness socially and is something that was successful for the company to use in the future.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to question I, like most, certainly agree with the concept of social schizophrenia. The idea of developing a certain personality for work that is separate from who you truly are is just insane. However, I do believe that it is still an issue to this day. The concept is especially obvious when taking social networks into account. Sites like Facebook and Twitter highlight an individual's personality and give a viewer a better taste of who they are. There is evidence of this phenomenon everywhere but a specific example I can think of is when the picture of Michael Phelps with a bong surfaced the interwebs close to three years ago. Most saw him as an Olympic hero, but opinions were subject to change after this scandal.
ReplyDeletePertaining to question 2, I immediately thought of our class discussions of whether or not we should create a new Facebook account to use for employers. I certainly respect that companies and teams want to maintain their level of standing within their communities, but I do feel like companies go too far on occasions. I don't understand why looking at someone's profile would inhibit a company from hiring a potential candidate as long as they are qualified for the position. I do like how Qualman inserted the quote from Colorado's head coach Dan Hawkins which said "if you're mom can see it, and neither you nor she is embarrassed, then it's okay." I think this is the basic approach by most companies anyway, and if an employee breaches the policy there shouldn't be a surprise if any ramifications are given. Once you represent a brand other than yourself, you must always consider the bigger picture. Personal freedom needs to be put on the back burner so to speak when a person represents a company and hundreds of other co-workers.
I find it very fascinating to consider the limits and restrictions companies place on their employees in social media. I have had internships with smaller companies and very large global corporations. Having managed the social presence for brands in context of large organizations, and having the opportunity to do so after I graduate, I find that best practices need to be modified for each organization. Larger organizations have more processes that need to be followed, thus taking up more time and energy, but it is done to protect the corporate brand. Larger companies have more brand equity, so they need to make sure the brand is protected and properly portrayed. I believe that global corporations should restrict what can be said on Facebook by their employees. When you have over 100,000 employees, not everyone will have something good to say and not everyone will be a good representative on social media for the company. There is personal freedom, but companies can be expected to put limits on that if you agree to work for them.
ReplyDeleteThe book also mentioned the idea of "too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth." My experience with large companies shows that this is all too true, and regardless of your opinion on the topic it will continue to happen. Successful marketers (specifically those in digital media) at large corporations need to understand the organization of the marketing department and learn to promote the values and benefits that most appeal to consumers in the most appropriate digital channels.
I think social schizophrenia is present and i do understand that there is really no way around it. I have seen examples of people that my family knows of back home - a man lost his job because him and his wife were going through a divrose or a hard time and the cheating went on explicitly on Facebook - the arguments and the new wife both commenting back and forth on each others facebooks - which i do think that things like that should be kept private - though at the same time if it was not effecting his work day to day at the job i think that it is horrible for him to have gotten fired. Before social media it would have been something he would have dealt with behind close doors where his supervisor or co-workers would not necessarily need to know about it. As though we have learned through this class and book, and the importance of the concept of transparency that there is with social media.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to question 2, I am very passionate about the fact that employers should have ZERO access to an employee's or potential employee's Facebook/Twitter account. If employers are able to see someone's profile that isn't blocked or protected then whatever...but if they don't hire or if they fire the person based off of "night on the town" pics or "I wore my bikini on a beach" pics because it "gives the company a bad name" i think is absolutely ridiculous (this does happen unfortunately). Corporate America will do whatever to play the big brother role over their employees and social media has given them greater access to employees personal lives. I have absolutely nothing to hide on my Facebook account and believe it is open for the public to see. If an employer didn't want to hire me because of something on my Facebook page or asked to have access my profile before hiring me I would say thanks but no thanks.
ReplyDelete2. Chapter 6 gives several examples of companies and teams that have mandated access or place restrictions on how employees and team members can post or what can be said. How far is too far on the part of these companies? What should be the balance between personal freedom and brand representation?
ReplyDeleteBoth in the chapter and in our class discussion we heard about companies requiring employees to reflect company values in their personal social media communications. Maybe I'm being shallow about the whole thing, but I sort of don't get it. Unless my personal account lists my employer or I directly name them in a post (whether it be in a positive or negative way), how are my posts associated with the company? If I tweet "pooped from a strenuous day at work," how many people are going to know that I work at the Hancock Fabrics store in Moline, Illinois and that I'm tired because the company expects too much from its underpaid employees?
Beyond that, I think employers have a legal right to see what individuals are posting publicly, but should respect any efforts by employees to censor themselves. Whether it be by simply watching what you say or adjusting your account settings to keep your content private, making an effort to "hide" any less-than-desirable content from the public eye should be good enough. It's like a tattoo: if I have a big ugly flaming skull across my chest, I won't wear low cut tops to work or when I am a public representative of the company. Beyond that, it's none of the company's business.
I can see both side of the fence in terms of employers restriction on social media policies and social media use as a form of weeding out bad candidates in job searches. While I understand that companies have brand equity to protect, I think it says a lot about a company who gives their employees a longer leash about social media. If an employee wants to post during work hours, I say let them. The chances are they need a short mental break. I also think it shows a lot for a company to not place too many limits on the content their employees post. There is obviously a line which can be crossed, but allowing employees to have different opinions about hot topics may demonstrate a companies tolerance for diversity. A company controls who they hire. If they do a good job this shouldn't be an issue. This leads me to the use of social networking for job searches. I find it completely wrong for employers to ask for passwords, but don't see why people have problems with them creeping on potential employees if the info is there. Let's put it this way, if am going to start going on dates with a girl, you can be sure I will creep to see what I can find. It's the same thing for employers; it would be dumb for them not to try and exploit that opportunity. After all, they are spending tons of money to hire a employee.
ReplyDelete1. What do you think of the concept of Social Schizophrenia? Where do you see evidence of it?
ReplyDeleteI think that the concept of Social Schizophrenia is still evident, but apparently not at much as it used to be. Well, in the way it used to be evident. I do believe people act out differently compared to their work, family, and social persona. I do understand, with modern technology, you can be acting like a total idiot, someone captures the moment, and then next day your co-workers know all about it. Unless, that is, if you have your profile's privacy settings up. In that case you can hide quite a few things. It's still out there though and we tend to behave better in our social experiences. I do, however, believe that with the technology we have and what is able to be leaked out to everyone many of us look for other outlets. The book mentions video games where you can interact with other people and not have to be yourself.