As businesses begin to see the economy turning around, many people are wondering how long our new recession-era habits are going to last. People have cut down on credit card spending, Starbucks and Facebook friends over the past year. Most are thinking it will last- at least in the short term. Technology has changed so much within the past decade, that we need to take a deep breath and reevaluate all of our “stuff.” Listening to NPR a few months ago, one of the commentators remarked humorously that, in contrast with this decade, the only thing that changed in the 70’s was that phones went from rotary to buttons.
Technology and especially social media have made our lives both more complicated and more simplistic. Now it’s easy to keep tabs on your elementary school best friend, but it’s more difficult to balance your presence on several networking sites. We’ve seen many examples of the increased ease with which consumers can voice their opinions on businesses and organizations- the internet is giving everyone a soap box and magnifying even the smallest voice.
Despite the increase in social media influence, many refuse to listen or take it very seriously. What goes around on Twitter can be more powerful than what goes around on the New York Times. Recently, the Times published an article about the systematic destruction of unsold stock at major clothing retailers like H&M and Wal-Mart. These stores were found to have taken razors to their unsold clothing before disposing of it, presumably to prevent the items from being retrieved by scavengers and lowering the value of existing stock. So what happened in response? The Times didn’t allow for public comments on the story on its website, but try a Twitter search for “H&M.” Even though the story was published almost a week ago, there are over 10 posts about it within the past hour.
This article, nicely sums up the gap in thinking between social media activists (which is just about everyone who publishes a link, or joins a Facebook group for a cause) and many who are still struggling to respond to them. It highlights an editor of a Canadian newspaper and his reluctance to take Facebook activists seriously. The writer argues that social media is powerful because of its accessibility, not in spite of it- that we must look at the impact of movements, rather than their medium. Yet many companies and institutions with infinite resources on hand still allow weak responses to PR blunders. Let’s see if they get the message in 2010.
No Comments