Virality

Posted on November 2, 2024 by Steve Mays

The terms “algorithmic engagement” and “organic search” pertain to how content is delivered and discovered online, each involving distinct mechanisms:

Algorithmic Engagement: This concept refers to the use of algorithms by platforms—such as social media networks, streaming services, and news aggregators—to curate and present content tailored to individual users. These algorithms analyze user behavior, preferences, and interactions to prioritize content that is likely to engage the user. For instance, Facebook’s News Feed and Twitter’s timeline utilize algorithms to display posts that align with a user’s interests, aiming to enhance engagement and time spent on the platform. This approach can lead to personalized experiences but may also result in echo chambers or filter bubbles, where users are predominantly exposed to content that reinforces their existing views.

Organic Search: In contrast, organic search involves users actively seeking information by entering queries into search engines like Google or Bing. The search engine then returns a list of results ranked based on relevance to the query, as determined by complex algorithms considering factors such as keyword usage, content quality, and website authority. These results are unpaid and are often referred to as “natural” or “organic” results. Websites can improve their visibility in these results through search engine optimization (SEO) practices, which aim to align content with the ranking criteria of search engines. Unlike algorithmic engagement, organic search is driven by user intent and provides a broader range of information sources, potentially offering a more diverse perspective.

In summary, while algorithmic engagement involves platforms proactively presenting content based on user behavior to maximize engagement, organic search is a user-initiated process where individuals seek out information, with search engines delivering results based on relevance to the query.

The term “viral,” in the context of content rapidly spreading online, began gaining traction in the late 1990s. By 1999, it was notably used in reference to marketing strategies that leveraged the internet’s capacity for swift information dissemination. This usage drew parallels to the rapid spread of biological viruses, highlighting how certain content could quickly propagate across digital platforms.

The phrase “went viral” became more prevalent in the early 2000s, coinciding with the rise of social media platforms and video-sharing sites like YouTube. These platforms facilitated the rapid sharing and widespread reach of content, leading to the common use of “viral” to describe popular online phenomena.

Public relations technology in 2006

Posted on April 9, 2024 by Steve Mays

In 2006 I was asked to be on a panel discussing new technology tools for public relations professionals in the greater St. Louis area. Blogging was still relatively new at the time and I’d been at it for five or six years, consulting for advertisers on our various radio networks. It was a packed house.

2006 was a busy year for technology (social media?). Twitter officially launched in July; Facebook opened up to everyone over 13 years old, leading to explosive growth from 12 million users at the end of 2006 to 50 million by October 2007; YouTube was acquired by Google for $1.65 billion in October, cementing its position as the leading online video platform.

I spent most of my working years on the media side of things rather than the PR side, but one (of many, no doubt) go-to tool was the written press release. These went out (fax, USPS, email) to any media outlet that might do a story (Newspapers, magazines, radio, TV) followed up by a phone call “pitching” the story. I don’t recall there being any way to get a release into the hands of the public. The internet –and, later, social media– changed all that. We started seeing and hearing the word “disintermediation.” Communicating directly to a target audience, bypassing traditional media.

By this time many (most?) businesses, organizations and institutions had websites but it took some technical skill to update these, a task made easier by the advent of blogs. And a well-written, frequently updated blog could be followed thanks to a bit of tech called RSS.

As I prepared to write this post I tried to recall what the field of public relations was like in 2006 (18 years ago!). Instead of googling I used a new (for me) tool called Perplexity that describes itself as an “answer engine” rather than a search engine. If you discount the personal touch, the result was much better than what you just read. I’m too new to this tool/tech to write intelligently about it does feel like a very big deal. I’m already starting to go to Perplexity for answers I once searched for on Google. And all we really wanted was the answer, right? Here’s a short (6 min) video overview of Perplexity and I’ll be sharing my experiences here.

Age of Social Media Ending

Posted on December 20, 2023 by Steve Mays

That’s the title of an article in The Atlantic back in 2022. It’s behind a paywall so I’ll share a few of my favorite excerpts (and a few thoughts). The piece is a year old so some of this might less (or more) relevant.

The reporter traces an evolution/devolution of “social networks” to “social media.”

Instead of facilitating the modest use of existing connections—largely for offline life (to organize a birthday party, say)—social software turned those connections into a latent broadcast channel. All at once, billions of people saw themselves as celebrities, pundits, and tastemakers.

Blogs (and bloglike services, such as Tumblr) [hosted] “musings” seen by few and engaged by fewer. In 2008, the Dutch media theorist Geert Lovink published a book about blogs and social networks whose title summarized their average reach: Zero Comments.

I was blogging long before social networks or media. And I read lots of blogs. I recall being…mystified?… by the idea of social media.

“social media,” a name so familiar that it has ceased to bear meaning. But two decades ago, that term didn’t exist. […] “…social networking became social media around 2009, between the introduction of the smartphone and the launch of Instagram. Instead of connection—forging latent ties to people and organizations we would mostly ignore—social media offered platforms through which people could publish content as widely as possible, well beyond their networks of immediate contacts. Social media turned you, me, and everyone into broadcasters (if aspirational ones).” […] The network, which had previously been used to establish and maintain relationships, becomes reinterpreted as a channel through which to broadcast.

As a one-time broadcaster (radio) I understand the appeal of reaching an audience.

Social media showed that everyone has the potential to reach a massive audience at low cost and high gain—and that potential gave many people the impression that they deserve such an audience.

I loved blogging. Still do. But damned few people ever read this blog. And I got even fewer comments. Disabled that feature years ago. “The rush of likes and shares felt so good because the age of zero comments felt so lonely.”