Mediaboss Marketing

Business-to-business (B2B) companies need to research and understand buyer behavior on social media before executing a social content marketing plan, which can be done through social insights.

Knowing that buyers are using social networks is only the beginning, said Jillian Ryan, an analyst at eMarketer and author of the latest report, B2B Social Media 2017: Tying Efforts Back to Larger Business Goals. (The full report is available only to eMarketer PRO subscribers).

B2Bs still need to do research to understand audience behaviors on social platforms to deliver targeted content to the right person, on the right network, at the right time in the buyer journey, she added. These sort of audience insights can be extracted through social data mining and listening.

Companies that skip this step tend to be unsuccessful in their social marketing.

Chief evangelist and startup advisor Jill Rowley explained that mining social networks for signals is the backbone of understanding buyers. Do the research to be relevant to your buyer and the entire buying committee. B2Bs should use social networks to find buyers, she said. Insights allow you to listen to your buyers so you can relate, connect and engage them.

For marketers, this is a big shift in behavior, since social media is often thought of as a downstream method to share content with customers. However, using it with an upstream approach for persona analysis is valuable, explained Tim Barker, CEO at DataSift, a tech company that recently announced that it would be partnering with LinkedIn to bring engagement and audience insights to LinkedIns advertisers. If marketers have a pulse on their audience, they are better informed before they start to spend their effort building communities and sharing content, he said.

This means understanding buyer usage habits, channel preferences and content consumption patterns, according to Amber Long, vice president of engagement, PR, content and social media at B2B agency gyro. When a B2B maps out its whole social ecosystem and framework according to the needs, desires and preferences of their buyers, it means the strategy is all aligned to the buyer journey, she said. This is the epitome of audience-centric.

However, Long also noted that many B2B brands that she works with are still a little skeptical about leveraging social insights and intel. An August 2016 survey of US B2B marketers by Demand Metric and Socedo showed that the majority of respondents arent taking advantage of social media monitoring tools: only 39% used them.

Business-to-government defense technology contractor Raytheon, however, is sold on the power of social intelligence. We set up dashboards so that we can understand where the target audience is and listen to what theyre saying or what theyre talking about within these channels, said Pam Wickham, Raytheons vice president of corporate affairs and communications.

eMarketer analyst Jillian Ryan discusses B2Bs use (and misuse) of social in the latest episode of Behind the Numbers, eMarketers podcast.

View original post here:
eMarketer Releases New Report on B2B Use of Social Platforms - eMarketer

Here's an excerpt from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451:

Now let's take up the minorities in our civilization, shall we? Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog-lovers, the cat-lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did.

There you have it, Montag. It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no!

Farhrenheit 451 was published in 1953.

Here's an excerpt from a Washington Post news story:

Before a book is published and released to the public, it's passed through the hands (and eyes) of many people: an author's friends and family, an agent and, of course, an editor.

These days, though, a book may get an additional check from an unusual source: a sensitivity reader, a person who, for a nominal fee, will scan the book for racist, sexist or otherwise offensive content. These readers give feedback based on self-ascribed areas of expertise such as "dealing with terminal illness," "racial dynamics in Muslim communities within families" or "transgender issues."

Sensitivity readers have emerged in a climatefueled in part by social mediain which writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized groups, especially when the author is not a part of that group.

The Washington Post article was published in 2017.

As Post reporter Everdeen Mason points out, if you're an author of best-selling renown whose published works include Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone just for starters, you might think you don't need to be screened by a sensitivity reader. You'd be wrong:

Last year, for instance, J.K. Rowling was strongly criticized by Native American readers and scholars for her portrayal of Navajo traditions in the 2016 story "History of Magic in North America." Young-adult author Keira Drake was forced to revise her fantasy novel "The Continent" after an online uproar over its portrayal of people of color and Native backgrounds. More recently, author Veronica Rothof "Divergent" famecame under fire for her new novel, "Carve the Mark." In addition to being called racist, the book was criticized for its portrayal of chronic pain in its main character.

Furthermore, sensitivity readers aren't even controversial in the eyes of a surprising number of the media. "What's not to like?" asks Claire Fallon of the Huffington Post:

There's really no meaningful difference between the content editing any reputable publisher would offer and sensitivity readingexcept that most agents and editors, to this day, are white, straight, cisgender, able-bodied women. The average editor at a publishing house isn't personally familiar with the experiences of an American bisexual child of Chinese immigrants, or a black teenager, or a deaf woman. An editor can and will alert their author that an odd coincidence reads as ridiculously contrived, or that a character's dialogue seems stiff and unrealistic; that's part of helping a writer hone their craft and polish their book. What, then, if the book's flaw lies in a cultural detail misrepresented, or a glaringly dated stereotype of a person of color? Unless the editor has more fluency in a given culture than the author, the editing process could skip right over that weakness.

And Slate's Katy Waldman, although not quite so enthusiastic about the sensitivity industry as Fallon, still thinks it's a generally good industry to have around:

As a push for diversity in fiction reshapes the publishing landscape, the emergence of sensitivity readers seems almost inevitable. A flowering sense of social conscience, not to mention a strong market incentive, is elevating stories that richly reflect the variety of human experience. Americaspecifically young Americais currently more diverse than ever. As writers attempt to reflect these realities in their fiction, they often must step outside of their intimate knowledge. And in a cultural climate newly attuned to the complexities of representation, many authors face anxiety at the prospect of backlash, especially when social media leaves both book sales and literary reputations more vulnerable than ever to criticism. Enter the sensitivity reader: one more line of defense against writers' tone-deaf, unthinking mistakes.

Even authors these days seem to see no problem in having to rewrite their books to fit the exquisite sensitivities of sensitivity readers. Waldman mentions one author "who totaled 12 sensitivity reads for her second novel on LGBTQ, black, Korean American, anxiety, obesity, and Jewish representation issues, among others."

There's another name for sensitivity screening, of course. It's called self-censorship. In Fahrenheit 451 some 64 years ago, Ray Bradbury prophesied that ever-increasing authorial sensitivity to the demands of an ever-increasing group of aggrieved minorities would result in books so blandly inoffensive that no one would care about books anymore. And then you'd have actual censorship.

Read more from the original source:
'Sensitivity' or Self-Censorship? - The Weekly Standard

Censorship is the opposite of what art should be about. Nobody is saying that we should accept alt-right ideas. But artists and curators must be free to let their imaginations, and political ideas, run wild. Rather than just disagreeing with the content of the work on display, these protesters want to limit the creative imagination, and limit what the public is able to engage with.

Even to the end of tackling bigotry, censorship is counter-productive and cowardly. Its much easier to call for the silencing of offensive ideas, and far harder to counter arguments in the form of art, literature or political manifestos. But it is only through democratic challenge that backward ideas are defeated.

The LD50 gallery describes the reaction to its shows as exceptionally aggressive, militant and hyberbolic. Sadly, this isnt the first time this sort of thing has happened. For years, art galleries have been called upon to No Platform particular artists, even where the work itself is not explicitly prejudiced. Exhibit B, an anti-racist installation, was closed at the Barbican in 2014 after protesters deemed it racist.

Whats astounding is that those behind Shutdown LD50 dont even consider themselves censors. The group says the gallery and its collaborators are the authoritarian ones, for giving a platform to hate speech. Some protesters have gone so far as to label LD50 actual fascists, comparing themselves to those who faced off Oswald Mosley at Cable Street. A pink swastika has been painted on the gallery door.

These people seem to think that racist words are in themselves violent and anti-democratic, that they pose a threat to people from ethnic minorities. The act of displaying white-supremacist works in an art gallery is seen as just as much of a threat as a national, fascistic movement, crushing freedom through terror and violence. In truth, it is LD50 that is the real threat to liberty.

As someone who considers themselves a progressive, and who supports immigration and equality, it might seem strange that Im so concerned about the illiberal tactics of these protesters. Why not focus on opposing right-wing ideas? But the fact remains that you cant oppose authoritarian, illiberal ideas through authoritarian and illiberal means. Both sides in this case must be criticised.

Undermining democratic values is the wrong way to oppose views you disagree with. Its also inconsistent. How can those who support equality argue that certain rights must not extend to far-right voices, and galleries willing to give them a platform. Clearly, these protesters dont support freedom or equality at all.

Tessa Mayes is a journalist and documentary filmmaker. Visit her website here.

For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.

Follow this link:
Censorship and art don't mix - Spiked

Barney Rosset turned down a chance to publish The Hobbit. That, he would recall, was an act of stupendous stupidity.

But The Hobbit would surely have seemed out of place on the long list of significant books Rosset published in his several decades running Grove Press, the imprint that challenged Americas ingrained prudery. Groves specialty wasnt fantasy but realism, in all its ungainly beauty.

Under Rossets plucky leadership, Grove introduced U.S. readers to Henry Millers Tropic of Cancer, William Burroughs Naked Lunch and Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot. Amid the volatile culture of the mid-20th century, Grove legitimized degenerate authors such as Jean Genet and Hubert Selby Jr., and it backed the search for Che Guevaras diaries and the publication of Malcolm Xs Autobiography.

Some prominent names dot the modern history of alternative book publishing James Laughlin at New Directions, Lawrence Ferlinghetti at City Lights, John Martin at Black Sparrow. But Rosset, who died in 2012 after 60 years in the business, was in a category of one.

Inspired, as he writes in this gruff and amusing memoir, by his familys history of rebellion in Ireland and his own youthful admiration for the Robin Hood-style bank robber John Dillinger, he set out to topple government authority over the publishing business. And he succeeded.

First, Grove published the unexpurgated version of D.H. Lawrences Lady Chatterleys Lover, in 1959. Then it brought out Millers Tropic of Cancer and Burroughs Naked Lunch. In each case, the company fought legal battles to defend the social value of its authors work and the imprints freedom to publish them.

The old obscenity laws were a cultural barrier raised like a Berlin Wall between the public and free expression in literature, film and drama, he writes. Near the end of his life, hes clearly pleased to make it plain: We broke the back of censorship.

In its heyday, Grove was not just a publisher of novels. Rossets little empire helped establish a mass market for the publication of dramatic works, with titles by Beckett, Harold Pinter, Eugene Ionesco, Joe Orton, David Mamet and many more.

Grove published the Evergreen Review, which hosted a sizable chunk of the literary and political discussion of the 60s. The company also elbowed into the film business; Rossets recollections of Norman Mailers ridiculous escapades while directing his film Maidstone, involving real violence and a drunken Herv Villechaize, are a hoot.

Boldface names make cameos throughout. Rosset, who was married five times, kept up a long friendship with his first wife, the painter Joan Mitchell, and he writes of being stalked by Valerie Solanas, the militant feminist who shot Andy Warhol. (She once showed up at the Grove offices with an ice pick in her pocket.) In another episode, he negotiates with Francis Ford Coppola, who briefly entertained the idea of buying Grove Press.

Rosset reportedly began writing his autobiography a decade or so before his death, and its publication now could have something to do with the timing of an upcoming biography by Michael Rosenthal called Barney. By the second half of the book, Rossets habit of excerpting his correspondence with some of his closest confidants becomes a bit of an irritant. To his credit, he also gives voice to some of his detractors, including fellow publisher Maurice Girodias, who calls his colleague unbearable.

For bibliophiles and those with a renewed investment in guarding the First Amendment, Rossets long-overdue account of his career in publishing is a welcome addition to all those musty old Grove paperbacks. Recalling the implications of his first big censorship battle, for Lady Chatterleys Lover, he writes, It would be a savage kick in the face to Death and a lovely kiss to Life. That could have been the company slogan.

Former Chronicle critic James Sullivan is a regular contributor to the Boston Globe and the author of four books. Email: books@sfchronicle.com

Rosset

My Life in Publishing and How I Fought Censorship

By Barney Rosset

(OR Books; 360 pages; $28)

See original here:
'Rosset: My Life in Publishing and How I Fought Censorship' - San Francisco Chronicle

5498047

The legacy media had an unfortunate incident when Mika Brzezinski of MSNBCs Morning Joe lamented Trump was influencing what people think and that controlling what people think is our job. This admission is a surprising revelation from what is largely a coordination propaganda machine that pretends that other sources of information are fake news and that they are impartial and unbiased.

The statement is in part an ongoing reaction of legacy medias view of President Trumps dynamic news conference from last week. Unlike the days of old, legacy media no longer can decide what the news of the day is or is not. Setting the narrative (or themes and talking points) is what they have done for decades. Now when they try to do it they are no longer successful and cannot yet fathom how this has happened.

Primarily they havent noticed that fewer people still trust legacy media and now get information from other sources. They themselves tend to sneer and dismiss other sources such as Fox (or faux News) and not take them seriously. Because of that they are blind to the shift in public trust. You would think that the steady decline in market share and rock bottom credibility ranking with the general public would be a hint but no, they cannot accept that it is a new reality.

The legacy media continues to ignore that internet, radio and other news sources are available and the public can get that information without them setting the narrative. You can check and see what an opposing side is saying and decide for yourself. Or you have someone like Trump who takes them head on and speaks over them to the audience. Thats what happened in the 2016 election. Trump got his message out over the GOP establishment and legacy media to the voters despite the constant efforts to smear, defame and poison the information so that he would not be elected. Legacy media provided Hillary debate questions in advance. When Donald Trump claimed it was rigged and crooked, he was right. Worse for the legacy media was that the public could see it. The conclusion of legacy media is that Russians and the FBI rigged the election not that they no longer controlled what the voters think.

In the past legacy media would have just talked over Trump and ensured that at the end of the day that their version of reality would be thats the way it is even if it wasnt. Not any longer.

Breitbart is a great example of a news organization that doggedly attacked legacy media and took great pains to explain what was not being said by them and how they were biased. It is not a surprise that Steve Bannon ended up at the White House with Trump, he was a large force at Breitbart steering the ship and was effective at countering the lefts template and talking points.

Donald Trump sensed the shift and now has the legacy media in turmoil, one might even say chaos. They have no idea what to do and why their usual methods of destruction arent working. Trump is still standing and their desperate dreams of seeing him do a Richard Nixon wave as he boards a helicopter after resigning are a perfect example of just how disconnected they have become from the new political landscape.

It will be interesting to see if Trumps humor and intellect will sway any in the media, it seemed to have something of an effect on many of the reporters. Then again the anger has unhinged certain people to the point where they publicly admit that they arent reporting the news but are attempting to control the voters. The pretense of fairness is shredded and legacy media still refuses to understand that the landscape has changed. The balance has shifted and that they, quite simply, no longer have control.

Follow this link:
Legacy Media Loses Control - Daily Caller