The following chart from the article "Users of the world, unite!" discusses two communication theories as they relate to technology -- the social presence theory and the media richness theory. The chart above illustrates the authors' application of both theories. They argue that games such as Second Life are more interactive due to their rich media content and thus provide a higher level of engagement than more text-based applications such as blogs or Wikipedia. Do you agree or disagree with their assumptions? Do you believe that social media platforms need to have a high level of "visual engagement" in order to provide a meaningful exchange?
Posts
21 comments:
Interestingly, I read a study recently that concluded the endorphins released during addictive activities (smoking, drinking, sex, gambling, etc) are also released during social media use! I'd have to say the social media theory probably holds a bit more water after that.
I would agree with the authors' chart and argument. I think that applications that allow for more visual stimulation and interaction rank higher in social presence theory and media richness theory. I think that people are more likely to spend time on things like Facebook that allow them to upload videos, pictures, and more. Whereas text based applications don't encourage that same level of engagement. For example, if I go to Wikipedia looking for an answer, then I'll go there for information, but I won't hang around on the site long after that. Whereas on Facebook I might spend a considerable amount of time looking at friends' pictures, status updates, or chatting with them.
I don't necessarily think that social media applications have to have high visual engagement to provide a meaningful exchange (just look at Wikipedia, blogs, or even Twitter), but I do think it helps. I think the most important thing is how easy it is for people to communicate and respond to each other. That is what I think makes for a meaningful exchange.
P.S. - I read that article too Trace!
I agree that visuals and rich media-content applications appeal more to a lot of people. However, I believe that a meaningful exchange with any social media platform depends on the target audiences and what they need from different social media tools. For example, while I, personally, spend, hours on Facebook every day checking/uploading status and pictures, a teenager would be more interested in playing an online game, something that never appeals to me although it has a higher level of "visual engagement." Bottom line: engagement levels are not determined by richer versus lower media content; it's simply that different audiences use social media platforms for different purposes, and this is why their levels of engagement vary from one platform to another.
I agree that richer content can enhance interaction between an organization and its users, but the users must be ready for it. Before high speed Internet, sharing via video alone wasn't an effective way to reach consumers. Videos took too long to download and users got impatient. Plain text was more useful.
Today, that problem is mostly irrelevant in the U.S., but people may vary in the type of media they prefer. In fact, a 2008 study found that 57 percent of the under 35 demographic watched online video, while only 13 percent of the 55+ group did. Having only rich media can leave out an entire group of people that may be in your target audience.
Mixing many types of content to give users a choice may be the best option. Since high-speed Internet is prevalent today in the U.S., having both video and text on your site can enhance the user's experience. This allows the user to choose how he or she wants to access your content. More than anything, therefore, it is important to share your message through a number of different media to reach users that absorb information in different ways. Having a presence on many different social media sites with varying levels of media richness can also allow your consumers to choose the level of complexity with which they are most comfortable.
I acknowledge the authors' argument that virtual social worlds and social networking sites lend themselves to more interaction among users, due to their high level of media richness. However, I do not think that a "high level of visual engagement" is necessary for a meaningful exchange. It really depends on the organization's audiences and the manner in which they prefer to engage.
The appropriate messaging and style of communications for a target audience should inform the social media platform to be used. For example, audiences of a certain demographic that have recently been diagnosed with an illness might be looking for blogs and discussion forums to obtain information and support from medical professionals and fellow patients. While this might be a text-heavy format with low media richness, it could be engaging for the unique needs of the audience. A more visual (less text) social media approach might be necessary to reach a younger, tech-savvy demographic with sophisticated mobile devices and short attention spans.
I agree with Tamara and Elizabeth on the media richness theory: engagement depends on the audience and their needs. Richer media like Second Life and Facebook certainly provide more opportunities for interaction, but that doesn't necessarily mean that users will be more engaged. It doesn't matter what platform is used; if people are highly motivated, they engage more deeply in whatever social media they are using - whether that media has a high level of visual engagement or not.
Echoing what several of my classmates have said, I have seen examples of highly engaging, text-based social media. For instance, I have seen bloggers and blog followers develop close online friendships that eventually result in offline meet-ups - and these all started through what the authors of "Users of the world, unite!" call the "simple exchange" of writing blog entries and posting comments (p. 64).
As someone who used to play World of Warcraft, I agree that it requires a high and very meaningful level of engagement.
Yet, if I'm looking for a useful tool that will tie into how I live my offline life, I want my information to be searchable and quickly obtained--ie, text based.
I agree with nearly everyone that it depends what you are using social media for. Yelp is text-based, but it is full of meaningful interactions, with the added bonus of being useful in my decisions of where to eat and shop. Also, as Gabrielle mentioned, a lot of very intricate and meaningful social interaction takes place on blogs.
For a class this past semester, I created a Second Life account. It was a horrible experience. I felt as if I had been sucked into a world that everyone else around me seemed to believe was real-- and beneficial-- and I was the only one who could draw the distinction between rl (Real Life in Second Life jargon) and sl (you can guess what that means.) People gave all sorts of reasons for why it was good- it let people communicate without having to face others (making shy people more social,) and a place for businesses to promote and sell products online. There's a reason Second Life never really caught on-- it was too hard to use, and it took too much time. It's much easier to post an update on Twitter or add to a Yelp/ Wikipedia post. The interface does not have to appeal. Many people use Twitter from their phones. Even the creators of Twitter say that Twitter's more fun on your phone. All you have to do is send a text message (for non-PDA devices) and you have an updated status. As much as I hate to say it, I think Facebook is the happy medium in terms of visuals and interface. The theory is plausible but I'd say that the highest use of social media comes from the simplest interface (that way older people can use it as well,) not necessarily the most attractive.
I believe that social media platforms need to have a high level of engagement in order to provide a meaningful exchange, but that this engagement be visual is what I do not totally agree with. I believe that our culture and social backgrounds the way we will engage with and use social media platforms, regardless of whether they have a high or low level of visual engagement.
What is important is to know what your target audience needs from the social media platforms and providing it to them. Besides, social media is really a public relations tool. It is about building relationships, engaging with your publics and showing that you listen.
I think it's true that games can be a more interactive practice based on their rich media content, but I don't necessarily agree that they provide a higher level of engagement. When an individual chooses to engage in text-based applications, they are involving themselves in a different type of engagement. Typically, by their nature, games are primarily used for entertainment. Text-based applications, such as blogs and wikis are often more intellectually stimulating. When someone chooses to engage in a game versus a blog, they are engaging on much different levels. In addition, text-based applications are usually chosen based on interests, hobbies, or subjects the user is interested in. While games are for entertainment value, text-based applications can provide ongoing mental stimulation.
While visual engagement can attract users, it is not necessary to provide a meaningful exchange. There are plenty of online forums and listservs of extremely engaged online communities that have absolutely no visual aspects whatsoever.
I both agree and disagree with their assumptions. A few years ago I would completely agree with their statements because second life was very popular. It offered the visual engagement that the author refers to. However, today you barely, if at all, hear people speaking of second life. Other social mediums are creating the "buzz". For example, Twitter does not offer that much visual engagement, but is one of the most popular social networks.
I think the success of social media platforms has a lot to do with fads and what the majority are using to date. Additionally, self disclosure seems to differentiate amongst age groups. Younger generations tend to be less disclosed and will provide everything from their real names to telephone numbers on their network pages. It all depends on your take of privacy and trust in the virtual world.
I agree with what the majority of people here have said in that the safest blanket statement to make is that the best way to engage a particular audience is entirely based on that specific audience and their particular needs. While rich visuals and content appeal to some, this is not the case for all. The reverse is also true.
It is the responsibility of the organization to research their audience before beginning any social media plan. In some cases, as Kat suggested, the best option may be to mix several social media platforms. In other circumstances, it might make more sense to devote the majority of attention to one kind of social media. It really depends on the audience, and this involves research and analysis. There doesn't seem to be a quick or easy solution.
Social media platforms most certianly need a higher level of engagement in order to be meaninginful. However, it is debatable that this engagement needs to be a visual engagement. As was noted in "Groundswell" different social media responses might cause different levels of meaningfulness in social media platforms. For instance, a creator might be enthralled by platforms like "Second Life" because of the ability to generate imaginary scenarios and be creative. A critic, on the other hand, might be more prone to react to "Second Life" in a different media form such as blogging. And might do so without necessarily participating more in the program.
What makes media meaningful various from target audience to target audience and person to person. While visual engagement can be important, it might be saying too much to argue that it is necessary across the board for a meaningful social media experience.
I feel the richer and more visual the content is, the more likely it is to attract users. Among the monotony and the white noise of online searches, we are like hawks eyeing shiny objects. If we see something more visually engaging, I think we are naturally more interested.
However, I think there are plenty of people out there who could care less about what a website or network looks like, such as the older generation who is used to simpler layouts, or maybe even techies who are bored or "underwhelmed" by fancy graphics. This is just a thought, but I think many people can create engaging and useful commentaries sans visual activity. The existence of so many useful blogs or minifeeds like Twitter justify this. Twitter isn't exactly overly visually stimulating, but people flock to it nonetheless.
Essentially, I think visual engagement is always a plus, but not necessarily a requirement. This is not to say you should go out and create a blog as simplistic and boring as humanly possible, but you also need to be careful that you don't go overboard with the visuals, either. I have seen websites that try way too hard to grab your attention visually and it just leads to a headache. I think it depends on the type of user and the point of the social vehicle, and just remember that you will never please everyone!
I personally think this depends on the purposes of social media users. For people who seek more fun may prefer to have more interaction in websites like Second Life, but scholars or other professionals may turn to text-rich websites such as Wikipedia for more valuable information. Some people who are fans of online games may change their preference of interaction as they grow older. So I don't think there should be a clear line that divides these two theories. They can be both applied to social media strategies at the same time based on the audience organizations are targeting. And effective strategies integrate strengths of one theory into the other to minimize negative effects.
While I do believe that visuals can add to the experience of social media, I think that one can be just as engaged in a platform lacking such content. Virtual worlds like Second Life serve a much different purpose than Wikipedia or Facebook, for instance - and therefore the content expected varies, and both can be "meaningful". A meaningful exchange on Wikipedia may not require extensive visuals, but a Facebook profile expects higher levels - both different uses and interactive in different ways. I agree with Tamara- the audience and intended use also determine how engaged, interactive, and meaningful the platform is.
I'm not convinced that the distinctions between these categories are clear. What differentiates a social world from a game world? Or a social networking site from a content community? Aren't the boundaries pretty amorphous? With that proviso, though, I think the gist of the argument makes sense: communication via multiple channels may tend to be more engaging. But it's worth wondering: does multimedia great a greater threshold for interaction? And when does it inhibit participation? Email and blogs are so widely used, because they're so simple, because they're so easy to initiate and utilize.
I agree with Tamara and Andre. First, a great deal depends on the audience segment using a given tool or application, as well as the context that drives a given user to a particular site or tool in the first place. Second, while a rich visual environment certainly helps to engage users, there are multiple methods to achieve this goal, and they don't always need to involve visuals.
I feel that visuals are especially important when forming a first impression of a tool or an application's environment. If I am unfamiliar with a new site or social network, it is often more appealing when there are good visuals (vs a lot of text, for example). However, once I am more familiar with with tools whose main purpose is to deliver information (rather than entertain), the visual elements sometimes fade into the background of my awareness.
I also feel that the visual experience is more important when it comes to communication tools that may be seen as more focused on entertainment, such as Facebook and YouTube. With something that has highly pertinent content, like Wikipedia or blogs (presumably, if you're reading it, it is useful to you), you have motivations for using these tools regardless of the accompanying visual content (although visuals can certainly serve to enrich these media). With a tool like YouTube, though, while it may certainly be used to exchange valuable information, much of its use is for entertainment.
Post a Comment