The Ugly Face Of Social Media: Why It’s Time To Re-Think The Ground Rules
Social media has not only revolutionised the way we interact and consume content, as it turns out what’s most important is how social media is changing what type of information we actually get to see.
Let me explain what I mean by that: In the good old days we would scan a newspaper headline and maybe the opening section of an article, or devote a few seconds to a TV show to figure out if it’s worth our time or money. So, we would get a teaser of the actual experience and then vote with our wallet, or with the remote control. The person who decided what we got to see was the editor.
On social channels different rules apply:
- On social media, is it difficult to vote ‘against’ a certain piece of content. We can’t ‘dislike’.
- Not an editor, but either a massive media buy, or, in most cases a powerful algorithm decides what we get to see and what not.
The Power Of Polarisation: ‘Popular’ Poor Contents
On social channels the performance metrics for content are black and white: every click on a piece of content counts as a view and means that an algorithm will serve that very same content to an even bigger audience. Regardless of how the content was perceived.
Of course views aren’t the only metrics that matters. Engagement, as measured via ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ is even more important and introduces a much bigger problem: Let’s assume someone writes a highly controversial article and actually many readers do not agree with the opinion of the author. The author may even intentionally withhold contradicting viewpoints, knowing that disagreeing readers will fill in those gaps in the comment section below his or her article. By doing so, engagement rates go through the roof and the article has a higher chance to go ‘viral’.
An example for that are Donald Trump’s unfounded claims that ‘Cruz stole the Iowa caucuses’. Trump is producing controversial noise in an attempt to overpower negative news related to his poor primary results. The ironic thing is that this very article is proof that it’s working! By writing this article I am directly helping Donald Trump spread this particular message even through I do not agree with it. And I am not the only one. That’s what’s flawed.
On social media every action counts as something positive, there are no counterweights that have a cool-down effect.
In fact posting controversial, or inappropriate contents on social networks in order to trigger responses from people who do not agree is a highly effective tactic.
Content Optimisation: The Worst Best Practice
The second issue with social media is that content needs to be optimized. Article headlines are a good example for that. On social media, article headlines are the single most important factor that determines whether or not someone clicks on a link. Thus there is really not much choice: Without a flashy headline even the best written masterpiece will struggle to reach a significant audience. The ‘packaging’ has to be right. For that reason professional publishers A/B test numerous headline variants before releasing anything. This entire process is data driven, designed to maximise clicks. The problem is that it also creates uniformity. Headlines often start following the same patterns:
- Including the word ‘you’ in a headline to make it more personal
- Turning the headline into a question
- Creating a list, as in “5 things you need to do if you want to…”
- …
This makes headlines more uniform and less differentiated, as everything is rigorously optimised according to well-established rules.
This furthers the tendency that the outrageousness of the key message conveyed is what matters most and that polarising opinions that are only supported by a minority get more attention than they should.
How Social Networks Need To Change
Social network algorithms are still in their infancy. Much like Google at the time when link builders could climb the search rankings just by spamming the web. Unlike Google, Facebook and co still haven’t found a way to solve this problem and to ensure that quality contents make it the top, whereas poor contents don’t.
One challenge is that content quality is highly subjective and hard to assess. It’s not quite possible to throw a metrics at it. ‘Time spent on page’? Won’t work because on social media most people won’t spend a lot of time reading an article even if it’s awesome. People just skim through. ‘Comment sentiments’? Welcome to the flame wars. ‘Dislike’? The start of negative campaigning.
At the end of the day, the good old editor got the job done, but in the age of social media this would be construed as outright censorship.
The further personalisation of content serving algorithms could be a promising angle, but to this day that doesn’t do the trick, as people in your network will fall for poor content every now and then and make the mistake to engage with it (and so will you!).
The importance of fixing this problem however is imminent: the amount of time that people spend on social media is increasing constantly. According to GWI Social globally people now spend 1.72 hours on social media every day.
At Sedgwick Richardson we have just completed market research that shows that when asked “Who or what has the power to change the world?” in particular respondents who are not Chinese or Hong Kong nationals do believe in the power of social media: 33% of them believe that instead of politicians, businesses, NGO, or just themselves, social media can make the difference.
The big social networks need to take responsibility to make sure that the change they are causing will be a positive change and not one that favours radical tendencies. Otherwise, social media may help someone win the US presidency who is a highly skilled social media marketer, but not qualified to become president.
About the author:
Hendrik is Branding Director at Sedgwick Richardson, to read more of his articles follow him on LinkedIn. Originally from Germany, he has spent time in Shanghai, Taipei, Kuala Lumpur and is now based in Hong Kong. Hendrik has worked with numerous local Chinese, as well as leading international brands such as Ford, TCL, and HTC. This broad project exposure and the ability to speak and write Mandarin Chinese allows him to provide unique perspectives, enabling clients to master diverse brand challenges in the Greater China region. Hendrik is a frequent public speaker on the topic of branding and delivered a TEDx talk in 2014. In 2015 he also taught Digital Marketing at General Assembly Hong Kong. Hendrik can be contacted via: hendrik.kuhl@gmail.com