Augmented Reality: the future of Education FOR EVERYONE!

               Remember in the late nineties how we were all so convinced that Virtual Reality would eventually take over how we interface with people, the internet and the online community? Movies like the Lawnmower Man, Tron and the Matrix made us salivate at the possibility of exploring a new frontier of wonder and endless possibilities without even leaving the comfort of our own home. Almost 2013 and most people know they aren't getting any bulky headsets or full body suits anytime soon, and they are certainly not lining up to try Secondlife.com (a virtual world developed by Linden Lab) but there still is something on the tip of any tech savvy person's mind today; daydreaming and imagining the endless possibilities of Augmented Reality! 

               You can imagine A.R (augmented reality) if you can conceive that if Virtual Reality was the complete immersion of your senses into a digital world then augmented reality is less complete immersion and simply a virtual overlay onto the real world. It enables endless possibilities by providing limitless digital data pertaining to whatever you are interacting with through a monitor or a pair of augmented optical lenses, the most well known is the Google Glasses expected to be released sometime in 2013. The Google Glasses utilize smartglass to unify the virtual world of smartphones, computers and the web with the real world of people, places and information. They were an instant hit at Google's I/O developers conference in June/2012 and continue to be online ever since. This is the promotional video released by Google and has accrued more than 18.5 Million views since April '12!  And the buzz will increase steadily as the release date nears, if the can get the expected cost to be closer to the cost of an expensive smart phone (Aprox $450-500) and further from the cost of an expensive 3D TV ($1,500) then I would imagine to turn to much more of a craze! 
  
                A novel idea and all but are the masses really going to race to but the first smart phone you wear on your face? What are the potential uses beyond the capabilities of any typical smartphone? Once the public truly realizes the potential of augmented reality, the Google Glasses will only be the first of a long line of A.R Glasses! At least in the US, you will find them on the face of every student and teacher,  every tech, every engineer, and then virtually everyone else (pun intended!). If you look at this video of the capabilities of Augmented Reality linking a simple child's schoolbook with an interface it isn't very hard to imagine the possibilities for educating our youth! Imagine fusing a young child's will to learn with his/her will to discover in a way no teacher ever could before! 

                 What about the workplace? You think corporations won't jump at a way to quickly, efficiently and economically improve the capabilities and evolution of their workforce? There isn't a single industry in the world that wouldn't benefit from a more efficient and more savvy labor force. Imagine you can optimize all of your employees from day one with step by step individual tutorials with hands on practice without paying a single instructor for a single hour of mentor-ship! BMW has been working on a augmented reality training program utilizing their "datagoggles" a technology similar to Smartglass since 2007! Take a look at this brief tutorial to replace a cooling fan in a BMW 325i. 

                  Absolutely capable of reinventing education it's not hard to theorize that it will also revolutionize reeducation;  it will  be simpler, more efficient and ever expanding. No more will human beings be outmoded to younger, less experienced but more knowledgeable labor. With this new tech the evolution of man will grow in as many leaps and bounds  in the next 5 years as it has in the last 25! This is the retooling that will finally get us out from behind our desks and out in the real world working, blogging, learning, interacting, and interfacing with people, instead of keyboards! 

Almost 2013, Why are SMS Campaigns Still Successful?

           SMS is old news! Now we have Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and all of the other social media sites. We have email, snail mail and all of the old school proven mediums in TV, Radio, and Print. Why are we still using SMS? Why do these campaigns still work? What attracts campaigns to use such an old medium? Do people really participate in these annoying text campaigns from these strange numbers? The answer is YES  and because THEY WORK!

           More than 5 BILLION texts are sent per day with 99% being opened and read with 94% in the first 3 minutes! Those numbers are completely staggering! Why wouldn't marketers take advantage of it?! Think about the cost of advertising in print, TV or Radio (not to mention the 1% ROI avg). How much do those Pay Per Click campaigns drain from your budget?! Content management across your social media circles for a really good campaign takes a team and that is REALLY expensive. Email and Snail Mail campaigns are useless, digital or otherwise, you can spot junk mail when you see it! What if there was a quick and easy way to get your message across to your desired audience? What if you could make it short and sweet just to get the point across and at the same time include a short link to more info and more access? What if that little link was 6 times more likely to get the recipient to click through than Email, Search, Facebook, or Online display ads?One that was ridiculously cheap and gave you the best ROI? Now imagine you can track it, interact with it, manage and optimize the campaign at any time from anywhere!

          UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES are afforded to SMS campaigns! The trick to SMS campaigns is keeping the interest of the recipient and avoiding that dreaded STOP reply that will terminate your connection! Think about your social media sites. By now you know that if you constantly bombard your followers with content that its consistently all about you or your business your getting dropped like a bad habit! You have to integrate attractive content with your marketing to keep their attention, by offering 3 times as much attractive content as you do your own marketing it makes the recipient 5 times more likely to look for your content! There's no reason not to follow the same paradigm for SMS! Attract your client with fun and interactive content, throw in a few discounts and sweepstakes, and with smart phones being what they are integrate a few good MMS (multimedia messages) and you got yourself a winner! 
       
              As long as there are 327.5 Million cell phones in the US, SMS will be here to stay! Think about the magic behind the medium, any other form of advertising you need the audience to come to you. If its print they have to open the paper, if its online they have to search or find the site where the ad is located, if its TV they have to turn on the TV, etc. SMS is genius because it is an open portal directly into your audience's pocket! (pun intended!)  So how do you get there? You can purchase a list of phone numbers from any one of a million places but that is an absolute NO NO! SMS will only work if the recipient wants to receive them! So how do you find the audience that wants to receive your content? OFFER IT TO YOUR CUSTOMERS DUH! Odds are you already have your desired audience in your store right now, on your site right now, viewing your ads on some other medium right now so how hard is it to promote a SMS campaign? Honestly its so cheap and so easy that if you can't figure it out you don't deserve to capitalize on it!

             Where do you start? There are two very popular agencies that make it very easy to get these campaigns up and running in minutes,  EXPRESSTEXT and SNAPGIANT, and they both let you try if for free! Where do you run it? EVERYWHERE and with BROAD STROKES! Start small but start BIG, put that 6 digit number on everything! If you want your name on it, your website or social media on it then you want that number there too! What kind of content or offers do you include in the campaign? That's up to you, just follow the very simple policy; KEEP IT SIMPLE! If your texts of more than approx 100 characters your done! If they want that much info they will come to you, include a link in the text for more info or more offers but keep the outgoing messages very simple. Make sure to include a call to action, whether its a sweepstakes, a discount, free stuff it needs to be interactive or it just won't work.

          As I sit here now, enjoying my quad venti macchiato, I just subscribed to Starbucks SMS campaign. I text the word GOLD to 697289 and within 30 seconds I got my welcome message, and it was opened and read. 60 seconds after that I was registered for their content. Not only do I get a free cup of coffee on my birthday, but I was able to link my Starbucks rewards card to my new profile. Linking promotions is the best tool in marketing REMEMBER THAT! Now my profile keeps track of my points for free stuff and even if it is lost I will never lose the points I accrued. Even the big guys don't get it right all the time; they promise no more than 3 messages a month-BAD IDEA! Like I said earlier you don't want to bombard the recipient but you don't want to lose your opportunity to maximize this gateway either! There is no doubt that they will utilize all three of those messages to be Starbuck Promotions so why not double the messages and include non-promotional content to keep their interest? Or better yet, why not include a way to "share" the content with their friends to further the promotion? This will be a tactic utilized in the near future but as of now noone has perfected it. Mark my words that will be the SMS marketing revolution!

The New Digg is the king of Social Bookmarking!

       What is the key to finding the best Social Bookmarking sites? BEING SOCIAL! So I went and asked on my social networks which ones people recommended I try out and which ones were a waste of time. So many of my comments came from strangers that said to me that it really depends on what you want your results to be. Didn't really understand those replies at first so I did some snooping around all of the major social bookmarking sites to see how different the content could be. In the end they all offered the same content but what I found was that only Digg had real informative content that interested me ranked very high and very easily to find instead of pop culture content that you find blanketing news sites like scandals or useless celeb news. Of all of the social bookmarking sites that offer user generated content, allow you to recommend and share media and rate that material for other users, what makes the content that find on Digg that much better than Stumbleupon, Buzzfeed, reddit or any of the other sites?

     
        I found that some sites, like Buzzfeed for example, may have a voting system like all of the others but what really drives the traffic to the content you find is the optimizers they employ that scour the web for content most likely to go viral. Sorry guys that not how social networks are supposed to work! Other sites like Reddit, my second favorite for a few reasons, is far more democratic but the content most high ranked is generally a little geeky even for me but the site remains completely unbiased to the content and that is what socially promoted content is all about.

     
         The new Digg takes it to a level that Reddit once mastered, making the content comment system more like a forum than just people dropping their two cents as they swing by keeping the user involved. They allow likes and links and comments on comments users can link to comments to further discussion or to rebuke the garbledeegook that people post that have no idea what they are talking about. The overall usability to far more attractive than Reddit though I really don't see Reddit staying far behind for too much longer.The jury is still out on Stumbleupon, my favorite think about Stumbleupon is that you literally tell it what kind of content you like and it finds stuff it thinks will interest you! Sounds awesome but the system needs a little tuning. I found two or three articles that interested me very quickly and then I was gone. It wont be too long until they realize they can use the articles I choose to further narrow the search and constantly provide the user with newer content.When they figure that out, they will be my new number one!

Myspace just can't get it right! or can they?

      You almost feel sorry for Myspace, my how they have fallen! Once valued at 12 BILLION, Singer turned actor turned wannabe media mogul purchased a controlling interest back in June/2011 for 35 Million. Even with Timberlake at the helm, say what you want the man is very smart (Jessica Beale-Timberlake need I say more?), they are sinking like a rock!  Alexa.com, a site that measure web traffic says even in the last 3 months it has lost almost 17% of its users and though every review I see seems to say the same thing Myspace doesn't learn. They all see the potential but the site is so incredibly flawed it could never be realized and so unfortunately Myspace will fold, completely and permanently in the next 2 years without a VERY serious overhaul!

       They did remove the rediculous eyesore of advertisements littered across the home page a few months ago so they can learn, but will they take the necessary steps to salvage their sinking ship in time for a revival? All of their users are screaming that the site is slow and unresponsive but there is no change. The homepage is XML but on other pages they appear to be clinging to the ancient HTML format in which today seems so ancient they might as well add a tile background and get it over with. It appears what originally made myspace so incredibly popular, the ability to embed your own HTML to change the appearance of your profile, will eventually be its downfall. I created a profile and attempted several times to log in and tour the sit and at first I literally almost gave up.

Generic HTML login page on MySpace.com

 
        Had to have been 15-20 times I would try to login and I kept finding myself on this generic login site, which I could have just chalked it up to maintenance or something but even here the code didn't work!  Click Login all you want and the page does nothing. After a continuous battle of web browsers and deleting cookies eventually I got lucky and made my way in! It wasn't until I used firefox that I was actually able to access my page, and BTW the first time I heard the media playing on the homepage. This is just the tip of the ice burg but how could they let this happen? I really couldn't answer that for you. I would imagine they would have engineers and testers constantly checking the functionality across all of the major browsers, maybe they are off today?

        I also recognize the potential for myspace but its inability to advance with the times will be its downfall. The band site pages are primitive at best, any media you access opens up a new window, the video player appears to imitate YouTube to a T and the search and navigation is horrendous!!! It took me way to long to actually start finding content that interested me and I only stuck with it so long for the assignment I writing this post for, otherwise would have given up.

         If myspace had A LOT more interest in the user than the content it sells they would have so much of an impact on the social scene! Facebook rules the social market now but they are on the decline though their numbers would tell you otherwise. The constant changes to the site, limits on content, invasion of the news feed with advertisements all demonstrate the same ineptitude. Both of these sites used to be strictly about the user... do they really think we won't notice or will simply just go along letting them shove their content down our throat? They both have the power of traffic and buzz now to turn it around but will they do it before the next social network comes?

        Facebook is public and owes to much to the shareholders to maximize profits so it's really not possible unless they magically come up with another way to pay their dividends. Myspace absolutely has the potential to do it but it won't be easy. I know MySpace has always been about the bands, but the music is for the audience so I think that should be the primary focus of the site. What is the point of promoting thousands of bands if the user that would be interested in them can't EASILY find them? How hard could it really be to require the user to answer a few simple questions here and there to keep a hold on their changing interests and offer content specific to them? Incorporate the original customization that made MySpace so awesome but it has to be controlled, offer it in variation of templates and an extensive way to manipulate and customize it so the user has more control and down goes Facebook like a shot in the gut!
       
       Think about it, music has always been a unifying force since the beginning of time!  Imagine you can create your own channel like youtube, with a social feed like facebook, be able to share photos like pinterest, get media suggestions based on your interests like NetFlix and be constantly up to date with the latest trending music based on your interests. The possibilities are limitless, but it has to be a complete overhaul, ONE THAT WILL BY ITSELF MAKE HEADLINES! Hey JT gimme a call and I'll show you the how to!

The Metaphysics of Cyberspace!

     So many would lead you to believe that they must actually convince us of cyberspace being an actual reality; almost innately any one who interacts in an online environment already recognizes this but almost none can tell us why. What is reality? Who is really qualified to define reality? What is real? In physics everything is relative so with that being said if I can interact with with this pen and paper just the same as I can interact with the keyboard and monitor what makes it any less real? Common sense indicates reality is what can be interacted with using our 5 senses, right? Oh well that's it then, I can't smell what is being typed so it can't be real. The fact is, that is absolutely not a valid description of what is real and what is not? You can't smell energy and you can't see the molecules that make up the air, why are they more real? Fordham Professor Lance Strate has done a fantastic job disseminating the taxonomy of cyberspace in order to better establish and define this "Virtual reality" that we have come to accept as Cyberspace.

Strate's Mapping of the Cyberspace Territory 

       Professor Strate defines Cyberspace as the diverse experiences of space associated with computing and related technologies but goes on to break down the 3 Orders of Cyberspace which are then broken down into 6 more specific types of "space". The initial order is called the Zero Order Cyberspace which refers directly to the ontological status of cyberspace and includes the concepts of paraspace (a fake space or simulation of space) and cyber space time (totality of events between the computers themselves and the computer and the user). The next order is called the First Order Cyberspace which breaks down the building blocks of space (and cyberspace alike): the physical (computers, modems, wires, users, etc), the conceptual (the sense of space generated within the mind as we interact with the computer) and the perceptual (the sense of space generated by the computer-user interface, through one or a combination of our senses). Then the last being the Second Order Cyberspace which specifically references the Cybermedia Space (the sense of space generated through the user's communication with and through the computer).

       I find the most inclusive of the 3 Orders of Cyberspace being the First Order and it is this I feel represents the true nature and ontology of the cyberspace environment. It is this order that encompasses the true physics of the real world relative with those of cyberspace. It explains the physical cyberspace in which it is easy to comprehend through comparison; the material base of the computer itself as well as the wires, network and other physical components is similar to the nerve structure of the human body. The impulses sent through the superhighway of nerves in our body is the simply the most efficient analogy; what makes the transfer of information interpreted by our brains any less real than the information interpreted and presented to us by our monitors? What better describes the conceptual space than to say it is simply a product of ideas or an idealistic space that allows us to physically demonstrate the theories or ideas we imagine through our mind's eye, our individual perceptual space. 

        Through the realization and acceptance of our "real" reality can we truly utilize the "cyberspace" reality as an expansion on our own. The Zero Order of Cyberspace explains this theory best when you define it as a paraspace or nonspace. As a fictional or seemingly paradoxical space that is not a space at all but a fake space or simulation is very much similar to that of our individual imaginations. 

"Disneyland is there to conceal the fact that it is the "real country, all of "real" America, which is Disneyland (just as prisons are there to conseal the fact that it is the social in its entirety, in its baal omnipresence, which is carceral). Disney is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, when in fact all of Los Angeles and the America surrounding it are no longer real, but of the order of the hyperreal and of simulation." Baudrillard (1983, p.25)

       Understanding the Zero Order of Cyberspace is a little more difficult to understand in the space of cyberspacetime unless you understand at least in definition the theory of spacetime. In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as existing in three dimensions and time playing the role of a fourth dimension therefor can not exist independently (Einstein, 1954). Strate defines Cyberspacetime as the totality of events involving relationships between humans and computers, between humans and computers and between computers themselves. In other words the physical time that passes in the time you spend reading this blog is real and not only temporal.  

An Acceptable Level of Invasion and Censorship?

           I myself have always been of the mind I was proud in the lack of censorship this country has imposed on the Internet, in direct contrast to countries like Iran, China and Cuba it was one of the things that really made me proud to be American. It wasn't I until I realized the potential threat to the democracy that I love, that I received my call to action. This blog will not presume to have a solution to the problem of privacy in the 21st Century, lack of Freedom of the Press online, or even the unconstitutional control of content online in (but not limited to) such popular forums as Google, Facebook and Twitter. The only purpose is to draw attention to the misconceptions in hopes that in defining the problem a solution can be found. 

          

           Contrary to popular belief, there is no “Right to Privacy’ specified in the Constitution of the United States of America just as there is no famed “Internet Privacy Act” as many suspect web sites would have you believe. However, a century of case law has established that rights of privacy are indeed implicit in the Bill of Rights as well as in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Therein lies half of the problem, all of our supposed protections are implied. There is no freedom of the press limitations for all of these social media sites (SMS) in which we share all of our private information. Facebook and Twitter have the rights to censor any content they don’t wish to promote, or promote any content they deem important. With the power of circulation that they possess, far greater than any newspaper, they propose a very clear and present danger to our democracy. I never even considered the fact that these SMS that we put so much faith in and attribute so much to in regards to unity and the progress we have made as an online community to be a potential dagger in the back of the democracy that had given them their wings. These SMS have a responsibility as a vehicle of conversation to remain fair and impartial and simply be a medium of discussion similar to a fax machine or telephone. As powerful mediums of communication in the 21st century they should not be allowed a voice of their own, sounds callous I know but they are far too powerful as entities to be allowed to have and/or promote their own political agenda, their responsibility begins and ends with their users.

             The Candidates of the upcoming election for the 45th President of the United States both attempt to harness the unparalleled capacity of SMS though neither has actually grasped the true nature of the beast. They both compete for the same audience but neither has understood that likes don't get you elected, if you want to try to come to our sandbox you have to learn the rules. You can't just post content, and buy ads and expect us to be engaged, you must engage us. Obama's camp tweets 4-6 times daily, posts in Facebook on their many pages on average 3-5 times a day and in both instances are literally twice what the Romney camp does. Obama's Facebook has 31 million "likes" while Romney has only 10 million. At first glance its obvious that Obama is doing more in SMS to gain advantage in this election, right? Do the numbers still seem in Obama's favor when you factor in he has been running his campaign for re-election since being elected in 2008 and Romney has been at it for little over a year? More than 80% of the content Obama posts is never delivered to his 31 million followers because most are old and lost their appeal when it comes to the "Edge Rank Algorithm"(Affinity x Wight x Time Decay = Edge Rank), while Romney's 10 million are "fresh" and hold more weight in the formula hence the content reaches its desired audience a lot more efficiently. Another example of how even the professionals truly can not grasp the magnitude of this new medium, Romney is delivering his message that much more efficiently but only out of default.

        In this past week the second of three debates was held and Republican Challenger Mitt Romney mentioned that in his proposed budget he considers cutting funding for the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) and in a quip says, "Sorry Big Bird." Before the 45 min long debate was even over there was a Facebook Page with 100,000 fans was created as well as a Twitter account with the handle @firedbigbird sprang up and immediately had 25,000 followers. Should you care that within hours that Twitter handle was terminated by Twitter? Absolutely! Just like the journalist Guy Adams who was suspended from Twitter for his criticism of the NBC coverage of the 2012 Olympics with #NBCfail, it was a clear violation of his rights of Freedom of Speech. Allowing SMS to abridge our rights is the definition of censorship. Where does it end? What if there was a political agenda for SMS corporations in which one candidate was favored over the other? What if one candidate was proposing some type of statute or legislation that would restrict SMS or worse, hinder their profits? Does it not scare you that it is 100% within their rights to silence advocates that don't share their interests, like Guy Adams? Does it not make you quiver at the thought they could use their Edge Rank Algorithms to censor content that promotes such legislation or the candidate that advocates it? That is the clear and present danger that keeps me up at night.

            While there are federal agencies that have made a valid attempt to protect such implied liberties, i.e. the privacy audits of Facebook, Twitter and Google imposed by the Federal Trade Commission. Even if one such law or amendment were to be drawn up in the United States that is where its jurisdiction would end, there is no international regulatory board or committee that could mandate SMS to limit censorship and at the same time protect our privacy.

           Should we and if so how do we regulate SMS specifically without infringing on the rights of the users? Is it really even possible?

           When I brought this issue up to one of my professors at Fordham University, he of course astounded me with insight I had not even considered but realized was crucial to my point. Professor Lance Strate, PhD is Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham as well as author of "On the Binding Biases of Time and Other Essays on General Semantics andMedia Ecology." His contention is that the loss of privacy is not only necessary but inevitable and proposes a destined shift of the social dynamic from a desire for privacy into the desire for an audience.

Prof. Lance Strate 

Author, Editor & Professor

Fordham University

"The First Amendment provides protection against government censorship of speech and the press, which was meant to allow private citizens and companies to say and print whatever they want to.  This in turns means that the owners of the press can publish whatever they want to, and not publish whatever they want to. In this sense, when Facebook, Google, or more traditional outlets decide to block content, cancel programs, not publish items, etc., this is not considered censorship, at least not as far as the First Amendment is concerned. There is precedent for requiring media that use public resources, such as the airwaves, cables run over public land, etc., to include a certain amount of public service content and to be otherwise regulated regarding commercial and political material, and perhaps it could be argued that the Internet that was set up by the government and uses some public resources is in the same category, but then again anyone can create a website with whatever content they want. Facebook, Twitter, etc., are private corporations, and they certainly allow for plenty of public service content anyway.  As for privacy, while there are some legal and policy issues, and Google, Facebook, and other Internet companies are involved in various controversies regarding privacy, the general bias of the electronic media is against privacy, which McLuhan correctly identified as a creation of literacy and print. Privacy was unknown before writing was invented, the ancient Greek term for privacy was synonymous with idiot, Hannah Arendt points out that the root meaning of privacy is the same as deprived, as in one deprived of a public role and identity, and the constitution has no such guarantee because the emphasis on privacy was only gradually developing in the 18th century. With new media, privacy is dying, and I don't see any way to stop it. I've said this many times, in a generation or two they won't even understand what we were concerned about, and where we were concerned about loss of privacy, their concern will be loss of an audience."

                Professor Strate also directed me to the works of David Brin, Author of "The Transparent Society". Not only had David Brin eerily predicted the demolition of the World Trade Centers by acts of terrorism in 1998 (3 years before 9/11) but also the ensuing legislation known as The Patriot Act. His Predictions were based on the prior failed attempt at the WTC in 1996 so he is not exactly a prophet but his ability to anticipate the reactions of the public and how the government would use their fear to create the act shows his incredible sagaciousness. Mr. Brin's View on transparent society are similar to Professor Strate's in that the loss of privacy is inevitable, the human race must contend with the evolution of media and communication and make the choice between freedom and privacy. His argument, very simply, is that the loss of privacy will go both ways. Eventually we will sacrifice our own privacy but at the same time so will the "elites" and in that lies the transparency, the loss of privacy will be reciprocated. He describes it as the return of "the Village", the reunification of the human race into one society. 
      
              While in theory a transparent society may be the next step in this communication revolution, I do not see the full transparency a possibility therefore it will simply be a rouse. "Big Brother" will never allow it, there will always be a means of control and there will always be people at the helm. My opinion, fight for your privacy. Fight for your right to freedom of speech. Fight for your liberty. As of January 1, 2013 employers in the state of Illinois will no longer be allowed to demand Facebook passwords from their employees. You don't think the request is infringing on the applicant's liberty? Why should it be tolerated anywhere in this country? We the people must fight and continue to fight just as our fathers and forefathers before us for all of the rights and liberties that we take for granted each day.  There will always be someone trying to trample our liberties for their own gain, in the 21st century they won't be in red coats, they'll in 3 piece suits instead.  

Is Evolving Media ≤ MediaEvolving?

               Ever heard the terms “Global village” or “Cyberspace”, perhaps the phrase the “medium is the message”? They all obviously refer the medium that we have all come to know and understand as the internet, right? Wrong- on both counts, all three quotes are nearly 65 years old, predating the internet as think we know and understand it by nearly 50 years, so how could they have anything to do with the internet? And as much as it pains me to say 99% of us do not truly understand the internet. Many believe that media and the internet are two separate concepts when in actuality Internet is media, an incredible over simplification it may seem but no, the internet is simply the most contemporary medium of communication, a complicated medium-but of media nonetheless. To truly understand the internet you must realize its foundation, not just from a series of networked 8 bit supercomputers in the desert somewhere you would begin at the inception of all media 100,000 years ago with the beginnings of verbal and symbolic communication, through the innovation of the automated printing press into the revolution from analog into the digital age of iPad and everything in between. Communication is media and media is evolving.

             
The Oracle of the Electronic Age
               Marshall McLuhan is considered by many as “the oracle of the electronic age” coined the term “Global Village” in the 1950’s, 40 years before it is used again to describe the internet so why is it such an incredible designation when discussing it more than 60 years later? McLuhan understood the power of media better than anyone in his time, realizing early on that media was evolving he was coined a prophet instead on someone who understood the power of communication as well as history’s penchant for repeating itself. When he initially coined the term “Global Village” he was initially referring to television, as that was simply the most contemporary and effective form of communication and media. McLuhan recognized the value of the medium simply in terms of the communication and sharing of information- such blasphemy led him to be ostracized by many in the academic community because they did not consider it to have any value as an “appropriate object of scholarly or pedagogical attention” (Strate, p. 175). Just as it was true 100,000 years ago, it was true in McLuhan’s time and it is true today, communication is the binding force of community; whether it be symbolic communication, cave drawings, language, or email the mediums or means we use to communicate influence how we view the world (Sapir-Whorf Principle of Linguistic Relativity) therefore the ease of communication thru technological means has created this “Global Village” removing the hindrance of physical distance. The early evidence of communities known as the “Creative Explosion” begins c. 30-20,000 years BCE with the first known appearance of communication; cave paintings demonstrated to later generations hunting tactics and farming methods, tally systems (notches in rope or sticks) demonstrated the first recordings of numerical data physical information. This provided the civilizations of the time to transverse time itself by communicating knowledge through the generations evolving the hunter/gather systems into the Agricultural Revolution 10,000 years ago. That major revolution took 10-20,000 years, the next took approximately 4,500 years in Mesopotamia (8,000 BCE) between the Sumerian writing originally consisting of pictographs and made up of hundreds of characters was incredibly hard to learn therefore only a few scribes were apprenticed to learn to record for administration, religious, literary, and scientific purposes, it wasn’t until a bilingual society was created between the Sumerians and Akkadia that cuneiform was invented c. 3,500. The bilingual nature of the society was the vehicle of inception of cuneiform, the ease of communication between one civilization to the next resulted in one of the greatest literary revolutions in history; the evolution from Old Assyrian cuneiform into the much simpler Semitic alphabet of only 22 characters occurred c. 1,500 BCE taking only approximately 2,000 years. It is also worth noting that the Semitic alphabet also included the concept of positional notation as well as the concept of 0 (zero) invented in India c. 3,000 BCE.

Communication: Sociocultural Evolution Stimulant

You surely noticed that as the boundaries of communication dwindle so do the time spans between the innovations, which is and will be the case for any medium in any century. The Semitic alphabet became the basis of Greek then Latin within another 1,500 years leading to the next great revolution, The Renaissance Era. The Renaissance which spanned a little more than 300 years from the 14^th to the 17^th centuries highlighted education, art and innovation- one of which was the mechanical clock invented by monks to keep track of prayer time for their disciples started the automated and mechanical revolution and another equally astonishing historically unparalleled innovation- the precursor for virtually every one that followed; metal movable type. Metal movable type as you would imagine accelerated the time tables of communication even more, no longer do books need to be hand written on parchment (made of the prepared skin of an animal) which made them much more affordable to the masses, education then changes the archetype of government leading to countless revolutions that never could have taken place otherwise and closing the poverty gap more with every passing generation.  Guttenberg’s automated type printing press came less than 200 years later, the steam engine and the industrial revolution less than 150 years after that.

The Industrial Revolution from 1750 to 1850 led to where changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the times. The discovery of electricity by Benjamin Franklin in 1750 was virtually useless at first, only true use was the telegraph which wasn’t invented for almost 50 years and until the revelations of Thomas Edison of the light bulb was the “power of electricity” (pun intended) truly realized. Samuel Morse invents Morse Code, the true precursor to mass communication and the first appearance of the code that is the foundation for every computer device known to man, Binary. Binary code is a series of offs and ons separated by short lengths of time communicated via a current of electricity from one point to the next. Soon after, thanks to Reginald Fesseden, Gugliemo Marconi and Edwin Armstrong radio broadcasting begins the era of mass communication. No longer are stories told one to one, one to many is now the means of communication, McLuhan once said “It is the device that creates the revolution, not the medium,” “mass society” is coined to define how man is now connected at a level never once realized in human history. Factories begin popping up around large cities and decentralization begins; mass production leads to mass consumption, mass transportation is developed to transport the workforce. High voltage power lines sprung up connecting coast to coast and it wasn’t too long after that Alexander Graham Bell had invented the telephone and the telephone lines followed. The next great innovation that truly completed this vision on the “Mass Man” and “Mass Culture” was the television, in 80% of all households within 20 years of its demonstration at the World’s Fair in 1939. This is the inception of Mass Media, information is now shared through multiple platforms of media; books, newspaper, telegraph, radio, television and the natural evolution of the next great medium is simple, if  the natural progression from one to one communication is one to many then the next obvious progression is from many to many.

“New Media” is another term coined by our prophet Marshall McLuhan, defined as different from mass media because it is not interpersonal such as the telephone or handwritten letter while still interactive and somewhat participatory. Some scholars would argue that “break point” came much later with the invention of the computer and the internet, Professor of Communications and Media Studies Lance Strate of Fordham University would disagree, he argues “they are secondary developments, an that, more ofthen than not, the characteristics of the new media environment are derived from the characteristics of electricity, electric technology, and the electronic media in general.” 

Setting up a YouTube channel for your business

               So you have a small business and think a website alone is sufficient to reach your clients? Not anymore! If you don’t have your business on the major social networks then you are not maximizing your potential. Major Social Networks include but are not limited to Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest and YouTube… YES the major social networks absolutely include YouTube!  You can find a list of the other major networks HERE  along with their ranks as determined by each website's Alexa Global Traffic Rank, and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast. While you should absolutely be sure to get your brand on as many as these sites as you can IF YOU CAN NOT MANAGE AND MAINTAIN IT DO NOT DO IT! One of the biggest mistakes a business owner can make online is reaching a client and ignoring him/her whether intentionally or not. You also want to make sure you update content and maintain your site regularly but I will go over all of that in a later blog, The Social Network Steroid for Small Business!

What does YouTube offer your small business?

Why should your small business be on YouTube? The goal is to reach as many potential clients as possible, your demographic is absolutely surfing the web so put your brand EVERYWHERE! You already have a website I’m sure, that should be enough right? WRONG! One of the most impactful things about YouTube is it allows an alternative access for ADDITIONAL CONTENT in the most popular medium, video! Not only that, creating and maintaining a YouTube Channel allows you to keep the attention of your clients. Simply posting a video on the site is not good enough because your video will be listed with every other similar video which means it’s right there next to your competition! You don’t want to get a customer all revved up on an idea then let them click a competitor so funnel them all into your product or service with a channel specific to your company! INSIGHT AND INFORMATION breed trust, upload videos of not only your products and services but behind the scenes stuff like how your products are made, how your office staff gets along and you create a happy work environment- Things that will give your company a “face”. CONNECTIONS are the most powerful tool on the web, whether its through social networks or reciprocal linking on your website (a valuable traffic tool for web traffic which cannot be understated! Read This!) Connecting with your clients by simply allowing them to comment & ask questions on your videos has the potential to create not only a valued client but a champion for your product just because you found your video on YouTube and saw it as informative. How about CREDIBILITY? Anyone can upload a video, but taking the time to create a channel marketed directly to your clientele tells your audience you’re for real and the more official it looks the more official your company will look!

Now let’s get your small business on YouTube!

After scouring YouTube for the most informative and simple to follow videos I came across a Channel created by Local Pulse Marketing which is by far the best and will get you started in no time! They are broken up into stages so not to overwhelm the beginner and points out the most critical areas to focus on at each stage of development. The first is very simply “How to create your account and update your YouTube Channel Information as well as what the purpose of important information like the channel description and tags, which enables your video to be found in search.

Update YouTube Business Channel: Updating YouTube Channel Information

The Second provides insights on how to personalize the design of the background so to be more identifiable with your clients. 

Change YouTube Background: Changing YouTube Channel Background Design

**Remember you want to make sure you keep a uniform look across all forms of marketing so try to use the same color scheme and style as you already used on your website.

               The last one I will feature will be how to link the Channel to your website and assuming you have already created your Social Network business pages, linking them as well. 

YouTube Tricks: Social Media & Website Links in YouTube Channel How To Video

**Remember best thing you can do for a potential client is educate them as to why you’re the best for the job, linking all of these networks together is the best way to do this because it allows a seamless gateway throughout all of your forums.

You will also find on Local Pulse Marketing's Channel that they have several other videos that would be incredibly helpful for any beginner marketeer like helpful hints on Linkedin, Google+ , Facebook. I will no doubt be referring back to their channel because I found it so informative...SEE HOW THAT WORKS???!!!

Don't let only the VIRAL make your choice in 2012

      Recently I was given an assignment to gauge Twitter's impact as well as my understanding of the election and I must admit...I never really thought about how it affected the election process. Everyone knows it was President Obama's grass roots campaign on the social networks that skyrocketed him to the platform in which he sits on now, but how it changed the entire system I never even considered. Aside from the attack ads, the name calling, the whistle stops, what are the real factors the voter uses to choose his/her candidate? Trade, the economy, social policy, international policy, taxes, debt, immigration, etc. But in one of the most critical forums of the election, Twitter, most tweets are about what every is really trending, in hopes of being re-tweeted or attract followers, instead of real issues or using the forum to ask real questions.
       The media has always molded elections and the process has evolved alongside it. There are some articles that suggest that a major factor in Roosevelt defeating the incumbent, President Hoover, was the assertive nature and tone of his voice over the radio. Many didn't know  that the broad voice was coming from a virtually paralyzed man in a wheelchair. In the 1960's during the election debates between Tricky Dick Nixon and John F. Kennedy, a poll was taken between two separate audiences (mixed evenly with Republicans & Democrats); those who listened on radio and those who watched on television. Both audiences were asked very simply, "who did better?" Would you be surprised to know that those who heard the debate on the radio chose Nixon but those who watched on television chose Kennedy? Nixon, with the more authoritative voice, wins on radio however Kennedy, obviously the more attractive, wins on television. Both forums broadcasting the same debate, the same questions with the same answers, so what was the major discrepancy?
        Now fast forward to 2012, the Democratic incumbent Barrack Obama versus the Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Campaigns are smarter now thanks to the "Change" campagn of 2008, and they realize the power that Twitter and other social networks have, but with this understanding comes the knowledge of how to wield it. The true power of these social networks is the virility of the subject.  A perfect example in this past week is Romney's #47% video posted originally by one of my favorite online news sources, "@Mother Jones". @Polltracker  indicated the very next day that due to the damaging content and the virility of the video Romney took a 7+ point hit over night. If you want to be president of the United States Mr. Romney, take another lesson on the power of social media.

         Another site that I am very in tuned with is @theOnion, a little more centered than the previously mentioned lefty mag @MotherJones, they both still give a fair take on all the issues, IF your reading their site. But like the campaigns they understand the power of virility and in the end, the goal is to promote readership and tweets plus re-tweets plus followers are the formula. which is where my argument of the power of virility over the power of the issues will be the deciding factor in the 2012 election. Like the candidates, most of the tweets they put out will be typical and bland until they get a chance to utilize a viral event like the #47% video. So don't expect to see many tweets about complicated issues, like Somalia or the Libyan Attacks or even the French publication of yet another satire cartoon of Mohamed in an obvious attempt to antagonize the Muslim world, both camps are a little preoccupied at the moment. You can decide why this is for yourself. Trending topics on Twitter when it comes to the political theater should be real issues that affect Americans, but we are just so much better at following the bouncing ball and flashing lights. Perhaps it's a result of the viewership being too dependent on the content, we're left hanging by a thread of every post. They don't want to lose voters just as much as they want to win new ones, so it's safer to respond than to initiate. But if they are smart they will say you can't accurately argue your position in 140 characters.  My opinion? Its a combination of the two, the campaigns know where their powers lie, if you give the public too much information they will drown in it. Give them a little less and it will keep them wanting more and that's a problem. We in the Twitter-sphere are like a fish on a hook because we put so much faith in the forum.
         There needs to be a better, more efficient way for the public to know and understand the issues and where the candidates stand.So many people either get lost or just lose interest with all of the information and misinformation out there. You would be surprised to see how many people have any knowledge as to what each candidate is for, or against. Avoid being one of these people and test yourself with this short quiz removing the candidates and the parties, asking you about the issues that truly matter and see which candidate shares your views.Your greatest fear may be realized and you just might find yourself, drum roll please... A LIBERTARIAN!

Do demographics even matter anymore?

    

         It used to be much easier planning your marketing budget. X goes to this demographic with this ad, Y goes to this demographic with that ad and we save up all this money for our million dollar superbowl ad! So much traction is acredited to all the different social media sites and the free exposure they can give you, now whats it all really worth? It's almost like the standard has gone from gold bouilion to whatever's trending on the commodities market today but i'm really not buying it.

         I decided to follow 3 of the most trending brands on facebook; Converse, Pepsi and Coca-Cola in an attempt to develop some kind of formula to make it all make sense. What's the attraction to following a brand and allowing it to post advertisements all over your personal page? Want to know what I found? Nothing! The only direct correlation I found is that people like football. No seriously they really do! I chose Converse, Pepsi and Coca-Cola because the level of popularity between the three brands to get an acurate sample and to see what content gets the the most engagement and resulted in the most likes and comments and it really didn''t come down to what you might think. Before even considering this sample I automatically assumed it would be multi-media that attracted the most eyes, I was wrong!

            Converse really stayed true to what one of my professors calls the i-Content Management Strategy, which is really just a bunch of words that begin with the letter "i" to get the user involved and ingaged ( just play along-yes I know the word engage starts with an E!) in your page and not completely overwhelm them with advertisements and/or constantly aggrandizing your own product. Converse posted about special concerts, free music downloads, as well as coupons for the sneakers and special store promotions as well but it was well balanced with cool news and interesting posts, not just one advertisement after another. Converse was interesting because the focus of theirs is more about what you do/ have done in the shoes with their "make your mark" campaign. Two of there most poplular posts were simply pictures of the original throwback hightops with 190,000 likes between them and almost a thousand comments all referencing how long this look has been popular, how long people have had the same pair (or even 2-3 of the same pair!). It was so very interesting how many people were so excited to share all of the miles they have traveled in those old shoes.

             Pepsi and Coca-Cola were very differant. 80% of the posts on both pages were one advertisement after another disguised as pictures and media but they didn't fool me! Whether is was a cooler of Pepsi or a Grate Dane with can of Coke hanging from its collar the intent is obvious. While Coke dwarfed Pepsi in its followers(50.6 million to just under 9 million), the content was so similar that it left me wondering why? Is it the product that makes the difference or is it the page that attracts the fellowship? On both pages the posts that attracted the most comments and likes were somehow in one way or another related to opening weekend of the NFL, either pictures of crazed fans holding their preferred beverage or a stocked cooler packed with the ice cold refreshments it was obvious the "likes" may have been on the facebook pages of Coca-cola or Pepsi, but what the user was really saying was "man I like football!" 





             So whats it all mean? Is all of the money you spend on advertising in the standard mediums wasted? No not at all, I believe the best adverting that comes from these posts are results of reinforcement rather than acquiring new customers. All of the people on your pages posting and sharing are your customers already all your doing now is keeping them involved! With well played content your message can be shared and re-shared and results in very good earn promotions but it all starts with that original consumer. That first "like" is the precipus of it all, but you can't get that if you don't get his or her attention first! 

The Digital/Human Connection

           Isn't it nice when a stranger smiles to you on a crowded street and for no discernible reason it just brightens you on the inside, you can't help but smile right back. And isn't it awesome how that same smile is so contagious that all the passersby that see that smile on your face get the same butterflies, sending infectious bliss rippling through the crowd. That's the human connection that you just can not define or explain. There is no compromise, there is no replacement or supplement for that human connection. Give me unlimited posts with unlimited characters and let me spill my heart to you a million different ways in text, but there is no emoticon for heartfelt emotion, not one for friendly sarcasm or to demonstrate real and true jest. Everyone says we should connect more, that we "need" to connect more. It makes us more efficient, it enables communication, it bridges gaps, allows us to network, evolve, etc. etc. etc... Honestly those sound more like the desperate cries of an addict pleading for another hit of connectivity from a digitally dependant population, rather than "real" people actually wanting to connect for altruistic reasons.
           To further yourself and your communities is what the true objective is when you connect in the "real world." School, church, extracurriculars, book clubs, beer pong tournaments all have one real thing in common, real people sharing real connections. Not one person has ever heard anyone ever say that all of this added connectivity makes us more human, if anything you hear the exact opposite but there is just too much money in the new mediums to ever go back. We have to be able to progress with the digital age without losing that human connection in the real world. You can build all of the online communities you want, create all the new and innovative applications and portals to keep in touch you want but you can never create a real community; a civilization with true human feeling, care, compassion and even forgiveness for your fellow man . The fact is in the digital medium- it just does not compute. You can have your one hundred million apps with 3 billion users and all the friends you can possibly fit into that handheld device of yours, I'd rather have a hug.
            Take the 2012 Summer Olympic Athletes Michel Morganella and Voula Papachristou as a perfect example of human emotion not transferring to the digital medium, these and all of the other Olympic athletes are performing on a such a global stage that they are icons, they are almost god like, so does that mean we hold them to a different standard? Absolutely we do, they are idols to us all but they are human like all of us and we all make mistakes. Both athletes were dishonorably dismissed from their respected teams for what was interpreted as racist messages posted on Twitter by each of them. You can't feel a persons true intent without reading their body language, your can't sense a friends displeasure without hearing the disappointment in their voice and you can't judge a persons core values in 180 characters. While I personally believe Morganella's comments to be at least slightly racist, I don't believe Papachristou's to be more than a bad joke, but regardless they both were judged and sentenced in the public eye. As a red blooded American it should sicken all of us, we all have our day to defend our actions, where was theirs? At this level of competition everyone of the athletes that are even considered have a level of heart that most can't even fathom. In the heat of competition sometimes you say things you will immediately regret, you can never take it back and it may not be forgotten but in the real world and on the field this level of excitement is understood, expected and even occasionally forgiven. Online there is no such empathy, it's typed into plastic keys but etched in stone. Those 180 characters now define them, their life long dreams-irrelevant, their dedication to their country- forgotten, themselves permanently branded as less than human because for one second their emotions got the better of them. What is this medium that it has such dominion over how the real global community judges one another?
         Often there are some things posted in one forum or another that does have the potential to add a next level of alliance between two or more users, a level that was impossible to generate in the digital world not too long ago. These events, whether they are posted videos, status updates blogs or tweets allow users to think that creating that real digital community is not only possible but inevitable, the thought is noble in its purest intent but frankly its just not feasible. There is just too many X factors in the human experience that can not be digitally replicated.  Recently, another Olympic reference, there was a video posted to youtube of the entire women's swim team singing and dancing to a popular song that gave a the viewer a more tenderhearted look into an Olympic team, adding a personal look at a group which are usually portrayed to be all work and no play. Because they were able to show that they can share a common interest in a popular song, and dance around like a couple of goofs (the way we all do when no one is looking), the result of the video gave the viewer a feeling of a next level of connectivity and made them feel involved and connected which added an even greater level of excitement and anticipation to the tournament. As nice as that is, it's incredibly rare to truly duplicate. It was dynamic and expressive as well as stimulating and full of emotion but so were the Tweets of Morganella and Papachrisou.  I'm not saying that the Olympic committee were right or wrong in their judgements, only saying that letting your emotions run free online will generally have the same result as drunk dialing, the next day most likely your gonna wish you could take back everything you said! My advice to everyone; including future athletes and anyone in the public spotlight that wants to stay there; as much as you want to share your success with those who have supported you, don't. Always be on your "A" game and be professional. As much as you want to share your emotions with your fans, friends and family, don't. People who don't know probably don't understand you and won't even if they met you, why give them an opportunity to judge you? Just a thought...