Check this Martha Stewart initiative out, called Marthapedia. Based on a wikipedia model, Marthapedia will ask people to virtually gather to discuss everything from recipes to spot removal in the malleable online encyclopedia format. One note though: any piece of advice you might want to add to this supposedly open-source publication is vetted through Stewart and her editors. And Martha admitted herself that the wiki is another advertising vehicle.
Does this meet the spirit of the social networking sites? What's going on here, sociologically, from a production standpoint, do we think? While you are thinking about this, consider these points on the Instigator (social media) blog today: Ignore the Social Media Scoreboard. An excerpt from that post follows:
At a high level, here are four things you can get out of social media:
- Social media is about personal brand. It’s about providing you with a platform to express and demonstrate your domain expertise, interests, values and goals. It provides an extension for describing who you are to the outside world. ...
- Social media is about reputation and trust. ...
- Social media is about making money. I’m not sure when “making money” became a dirty word, but it shouldn’t be. And there’s a ton of opportunity online to properly leverage social media marketing. On top of that, many people look at how to use social media in a business context, bringing all of the proper practices of running a good business to the areas of social media. ...
- Social media is about discovering opportunities you didn’t know existed.
11 comments:
I think Yoskovitz makes an excellent point when he says that social media is about personal brand. All the social media sites which I have seen seem to promote brand first, and provide information second. It's very much about being "cool". It all starts with one person, one company, one thing, then branches out from there into endless links. All these links, however, tie back into what that person/thing/etc. is all about. These websites are, in my opinion, a very natural link to advertising. I for one am so accustomed to seeing every form of media infused with advertising that I usually ask myself, "How MUCH advertising is seeped into this website/talkshow/etc?" By the time social media sites popped up, I think they were already born with the natural instinct, if not purpose, to promote some sort of brand, whether it be one's personality or one's company. I therefore don't feel it's out of the spirit of most social networking sites to have Marthapedia join them to promote her brand. If people are looking at social media websites, I think they're used to this sort of cross-over between advertising, networking, information, and news. It's like the new (online) infomercial, except now you can tell Martha Stewart how you feel about that dehydrator you bought 20 years ago.
Rachel Owens
J800
Social networking sites are the latest goldmine because they are all about people. I am a firm believer that no matter what some may say, people like to know what other people think…whether it’s about a new recipe, how to get a stain out of a carpet or even more about people themselves. More than ever, it is easier to find our everything about your new best friend or romantic interest. With the advances of the internet, you can not only “stalk” them to find out their favorite color or birthday, but can also go as far as to see if they’ve committed crimes. The Toxic Sludge article pointed out, in regards to the California raisins and PR, that “You never gave your consent for them to be involved in your life, and in return they have never bothered to ask you for your consent.” (p. 3) But isn’t that what democracy is all about?
The Toxic Sludge article also referenced this point. “One of the most cherished freedoms in a deomocracy is the right to freely participate in “the marketplace of ideas.” We value this freedom because without it, all our other freedoms are impossible to defend. In a democracy every idea, no matter how absurd or offensive, is allowed to compete freely for our attention and acceptance.” (p.10)
If Martha wants to throw herself into the social networking sites, more power to her. Her method may not be a social networking site like Facebook or My Space, but it is like wikipedia and many blogs that post valuable information for others to see…and we thrive on it.
I would first argue that there is no standard for social networking sites. So if 'marthapedia' harbors the spirit of the networks does not matter. Whether this is good or bad I would like to leave for another debate. As for the question what's really going on here: I found two interesting and contrasting points in McChesney's article on corporate media. McChesney argues, "The internet has opened up a very important space for progressive and democratic communication...(p30)" I love the warm fuzzies I get when I read this opinion. With these new social networks we can harken back to the days of our founding father's, where we now have a new and improved "townhouse meeting". This romanticized foundation of democracy, could be argued to be reincarnate with our digital social networks. Ideas can be shared and discussed, while democracry is served to everday citizens. However, this egalitarian feel-good is dispelled on page 34, "the internet (is) shifting from being a participatory medium that serves the interests of the public to being a broadcast medium where corporations deliver consumer-oriented information." This argument can be seen as manifested in the branding of social networks for marthapedia. I believe these social networks serve a function somewhere in between these two opinions. That while this interaction is depersonalized and sometines even manipulated for capitalist gain, you cannot completely discount the amount of discourse that takes place. Do you really feel like the original social networks, the 'townhouse meetings' weren't occassionally manipulated by some entrepenuer of politican? I don't. So what do you think, are these social networks serving any purpose? Is it a purpose it should be serving?
Kyle
Yes, the Marthwiki conforms to what previous social-network sites have done. It exploits people's desire to brand themselves, to become part of a virtual community, it makes money, and acts as a facilitator of the marketplace of ideas.
It doesn't make a distinction between being an unpartisan, pure source of information and being an advertising/commercial vehicle. The wiki promotes Martha Stewart's business interests. But I think It also represents itself as being a place for "do-it-yourself" journalism. A place where the average person can report and editorialize.
Do these two things have to be labeled as such? Or can the lines be blended? They are blended everyday, but is it ethically right to do so?
They wiki follows the tradition of print and broadcast news. We read in the Mcmanus article that news publications promote products like fashion and electronics. This coverage produces a commercial environment which encourages people to be consumers (thus benefiting advertisers).
So i don't think the wiki is really doing anything new, it's just building upon the traditions set forth by print and electronic media.
I’m not convinced that Marthapedia entirely fits the definition of a social networking site – or at least my definition of a social networking site. While visiting the site, I noticed one important feature that was missing: profiles of the people who posted comments. Although I didn’t post anything myself, it seemed that all anyone needed to provide in order to contribute to the site was an email address and username.
The term networking, I think, requires more than just this semi-anonymous information. I think to be a network it is important to know, at least a little, about who the person disseminating the information is. That being said, I think this site would be more appropriately called a forum.
It isn’t an entirely open forum, though, since we know that it is monitored. This is necessary to make sure that only good, sound advice is associated with the Martha Stewart name – but again undercuts the nature of this type of site.
What Marthapedia certainly does accomplish is allowing consumers to interact with a brand that they know and trust therefore strengthening their ties to it. It also serves the need of many to help others by offering advice in an area they feel they know a lot about. It furthers the ‘good nature’ that Martha Stewart’s image is all about (except for that stint in jail…).
I really like the point that Kyle made about the possibility of Social Networking Sites as being a sort of new-age townhall meeting. In an age where people are increasingly isolated from each other after turning to private and personalized communication available with the Internet, I see social networking as a response and an attempted solution to this fact. However, I also agree with Kyle's comment that advertising dispels this notion.
A social networking site where advertising is separate from the brand of the network allows for positive communication between members of society that I feel is sometimes inhibited in the mainstream media. For example, in Toxic Sludge, the point is made that "'Diet for a Poisoned Planet'...fell victim to a PR campaign designed to prevent it from ever reaching the 'marketplace of ideas'" (10). Certain social networking sites can counteract this.
However, I don't think Marthapedia accomplishes this concept. Because her editors sift through the information posted on the site, limiting somewhat the free flow of ideas, I believe her site serves mainly as a way to reel in customers. Yes, people are able to exchange things like recipes and tips, but if certain tips don't match Martha Stewart's message or contradict anything her company has promoted in the past, what good does this really serve? How is this too incredibly different from readers submitting questions to the magazine, for instance, and having an editor choose the best and most acceptable for print? Unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of Marthapedia, her social networking site doesn't provide visitors with much more than entertainment. - Elli
Although not the typical Social networking site, such as Facebook or MySpace, I feel Marthapedia still meets the spirit of social networking.
Some people may view internet and computer networks as simply a free marketplace of ideas, so Martha Stewart's site would not match the supposed agency of networking sites.
Then again, Croteau and Hoynes make the point in their chapter on "Media Organizations and Professionals" that computer networks are not a "kind of liberated zone, free from stifling labels, big bureaucracies, and arcane tradition" (150). I agree that our social norms and the companies that constructed the framework of the sites influence social networks, but I do not think this makes them illegitimate. Even Yoskovitz defined social media's purpose as an opportunity to make money and market to their audience.
Following more of Yoskovitz's criteria, Marthapedia still allows people to express their expertise and interests, personally branding themselves with Martha Stewart's value's and ideas. It also offers new opportunities for visitors that can be trusted because of Martha Stewart's respectable name.
Marthapedia meets many of the purposes of a social networking site, proving that even a corporation's advertising vehicle can offer a platform for valuable exchange between people.
As for Marthapedia being a social networking site, I'm going to go ahead and say that I don't really think it is. For one, if Martha and her people are editing, or at least reading the entries with the ability to edit them, I'm not sure I entirely trust the content that ends up on the site. By saying that I don't entirely trust it, I mean that I'm not sure I trust that it is truly the voice of the original author; I would not be sure that what I was getting wasn't just some kind of spin marketed by Martha Stewart and her ilk, and I am made more wary by Stewart's admitting it's an advertising vehicle. We talk all the time in 561 about intent and whether that matters, and I believe most of our class believes that it does. If intent matters, and she intends this to be an advertising vehicle, is it really a social networking site like MySpace or facebook? I would argue no.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, Martha Stewart is a gatekeeper in this case, and as gatekeeper she will publish or not publish things according to her own tastes and desires. Our reading by David Manning White said content choices by gatekeepers are "highly subjective...based on the 'gatekeeper's' own set of experiences, attitudes and expectations." This being said, I would argue that social networking sites like MySpace and facebook lack a gatekeeper in so far as I can post what I would like in each category, without being edited. (though of course there is a framework set up that I cannot work outside of) It seems to me that Marthapedia would lack this freedom, and therefore is not so much a "social networking" Web site, but more of a publicity/advertising stunt for Martha Stewart and her brand.
Latest news from yesterday: MSNBC acquired Newsvine. No matter what, the corporates are quick in recognizing the economic capabilities(potentials?) of social network sites.
What could be the most grim vision when commercial endeavors such as Marthapedia and corporate strategies such as MSNBC's acquisition of Newsvine combine? Going back to McChesney's notion that the Internet is being shifted "from being a participatory medium that serves the interests of the public to being a broadcast medium where corporations deliver consumer-oriented information" could even get worse in the case of social network sites - the 'public' voluntarily participating in delivering consumer-oriendted information. In such a case it is not consumer-oriented information per se that is destructive, but those things that are disguised as being something of public participation and of some 'collective intelligence'.
I don't mean to say that social network sites for commercial purposes are evil. As long as they make their objectives clearly visible and clearly articulate it, life is good.
It can be argued whether or not Martha's latest venture into the online world stays true to the "conventions" of social networking sites. However, the more interesting arguement in my opinion is why this is happening.
I would argue that this can be seen as another form of homogenized content. Social networking sites are hot right now, so why shouldn't Martha take advantage of this latest marketing venture?
Also, I would agree with Joelle that a vehicle like a social networking site plays an important role in providing another way to access the "marketplace of ideas." The alarming situation here is not that people are using social networking sites at increasing rates or that someone like Martha Stewart is turning them into marketing strategies, but rather who they are being moderated by and how that is affecting the content and the ideas which are given presence.
In situations like Martha's wiki, it may not be as important which recipies she allows to be shared, but when it comes to forums that help the functioning of democracy, it does matter who is moderating them.
Social networking sites can only be helpful to democracy if they are free from biased constraints, so they can be a true marketplace of ideas.
--nicole f.
I agree with Joelle: More power to Martha Stewart (though not my favorite person in the world) for embarking on something semi-unique in terms of branding. I bet it will be a huge success.
I don't necessarily agree that social networking has to be free from bias. How is MySpace or Facebook free from bias? In terms of news content, then yes I agree...and I might be wrong, but aren't most social networking sites about just that - isn't it an open market for ideas and opinions? How can it then be an unbiased place?
In terms of Marthapedia and "censorship," I'm sure it's just a way to keep out crazy, unrelated comments that might be offensive. Or something. Wikipedia does the same thing now. I don't think they used to, and people wrote ridiculous things: Case in point, I Wikipedia-ed (funny, I made that a verb) my hometown and all there was was information on some guy from my high school saying he was the best thing that happened to Plymouth. I'm glad they now have an advisory board. But back to Martha...
News, entertainment...everything is about money money money. Yes, this is a ploy. So is everything else and we buy into it regardless, just like Joelle said. It is about advertising, and I'm sure it will make news. Isn't that how it goes? McManus said: "Advertisers value news environments that create what Bagdikian calls 'a buying mood' - a curiosity about and a desire to possess goods and services that is generated by purported news content."
Marthapedia is making news. She knew it would, and is probably reaping the benefits of it. Hopefully legally this time.
Abby R.
Post a Comment