Mediaboss Marketing

Endless ink, digital and otherwise, has been spent debating whether Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of the rapidly-multiplying social media ilk are the best or worst thing ever to happen to humankind. Much less has been spent on what it means for markets.

But a recent story about car-pooling apps highlights the fact that modern technology, including social media, has a role to play in making markets more efficient. And since efficient markets are generally a good thing, this counts as a big checkmark in the "plus" column of our calculations concerning the net benefit of social media.

Another big enemy of efficient markets is monopoly power, essentially a situation in which some market actor enjoys a relative lack of competition and hence has the ability to throw its weight around. Social media promises improvements here, too. Sites like Groupon allow individuals to aggregate in ways that give them substantial bargaining power.

The general lesson here is that markets thrive on information. Indeed, economists' formal models for efficient markets assume that all participants have full knowledge-that is, they assume that lack of information will never be an issue. Social networks are providing increasingly sophisticated mechanisms for aggregating, sharing, and filtering information, including important information about what consumers want, about what companies have to offer, and so on. So while a lot of attention has been paid to the sense in which social media are "bringing us together," the real payoff may lie in the way social media render markets more efficient.

More from Canadian Business

See more here:
Social networking's hidden ethical value

A social networking company is not a technology company like Intel is a technology company; its users are its product.

It is easy to forget how high-flying Digg once was. Digg was supposed to be the future of all media, not just social media. People were going to rule the Internet; people were going to curate the web. Down with gatekeepers! But, as many Digg users quickly discovered, new gangs of gatekeepers kept a tight grip on the site's story flow. These guys played the Digg system, often with a mix of social and monetary motives, and Digg never figured out how to incorporate their power users into their community without giving them all the power.

Here was the huge problem with the Digg system. People submitted stories that were nominally voted up or down. But those stories didn't get linearly get more traffic as the upvotes flew. No, you only got a bunch of traffic if the algorithm selected the story and sent it to the front page. This meant that trying to "pop" stories on Digg was like playing NBA Jam with hotspots turned on. The same amount of effort sometimes yielded 12 points and sometimes 2 points and most often 0 points.

The only way to consistently get stuff on the home page was to work at it like a job. And so, some people began to work at it like a job, and then it became their jobs. While some really thought of themselves as an important part of the journalistic enterprise, many others contracted out their services to entities of all kinds. Stripped of any institutional sense of editorial ethics, many Digg power users ended up promoting all kinds of crap along with good stories from legitimate writers and sites.

Meanwhile, everyday users were realizing that nothing they submitted ever even had a chance in hell of going to the front page. They weren't empowered netizens visiting from the future, but chumps who were being played by Digg and a bunch of "social-media consultants."

In short, the community broke. And the community, remember, is also the content machine. Without that, Digg was revealed to be just a bunch of computers waiting for people to add value to the thin offering of a social network. The site still gets a substantial amount of traffic, but that Myspace/Friendster smell of death hangs in the pixels.

There is one clear lesson from Digg's sale: the technology that powered a once-massive social network is worth about $500,000. All the rest of the value derives from the people that use it. Though scaling is tough, any developer in the world can build some profiles and let people connect up. It's an act of genius -- or an act of God, by which I mean luck -- to design a site constitution that makes people want to build their online lives at your URL (or in your app). Social networking companies are not technology companies as much as they are community companies.

To be honest, I don't know why anyone tries to start these things. No one has much of a competitive advantage, the space is crowded, you can't compete on price, and no one wants to join a Reddit for hermit crabs. Then I remember how social networks function: users produce the product and they *are* the product. Now that's some kind of good hustle.

More From The Atlantic

Excerpt from:
The Big Digg Lesson: A Social Network Is Worth Precisely as Much as Its Community

A supposed link between social networking websites and depression has been debunked by a US study.

Researchers from the University of Wisconsin found no significant link between the amount of time spent on social networking sites and the probability of depression.

The study by the university's School of Medicine and Public Health comes after a report last year by the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested that exposure to Facebook could lead to depression.

University of Wisconsin researchers surveyed 190 university students aged 18 to 23 about their internet use over seven days.

The students were sent 43 text messages during the period asking if they were currently online, how long they had been online and what they were doing on the internet.

Participants spent more than half their total time online on Facebook.

But when the researchers evaluated the data including the depression screening results, no significant links with social media use and depression was found.

Go here to see the original:
Social media, depression link debunked

LEEDS, UNITED KINGDOM--(Marketwire -07/13/12)- For the best part of the last decade, social networking has transformed communication and the way that people interact with each other. But is social networking just for the younger generations, or can older adults join in on the conversation too?

People across the globe have instant access to social networking websites at the touch of a button, allowing them to be more connected than ever before.

Research(i) showed that in 2011 a growing number of over 50's were going online. Popular social networking website, Facebook, for example saw a growing number of older people signing up. Membership to the website increased by 41% between 2009 and 2011. A staggering 84% of those were older users.

It's not just Facebook which is quickly being dominated by the older generation, as a number of over 50s are heading to Twitter for social news and information too.

Further studies show that the number of over 50s heading to Twitter dramatically increased following the Ryan Giggs super-injunction scandal last year.(ii) Figures show that there was a surge in men aged between 50 and 64 who used the website after the news broke.

Over 60% of the UK Twitter audience following the story was made up of men over 50. The number of pensioner aged female Twitter users also doubled to follow the developing news.

A growing number of over 50s are keen to get involved in the latest technology and internet trends. Social networking is as familiar to them as it is to many in the younger generation. Whilst they may be becoming savvier web users, most could benefit from using the internet to become savvier with their personal finances, for example, when looking for over 50s life insurance.

Notes for editors:

(i)http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/facebook-flourishes-among-over50s-2303662.html

(ii)Research from Nielsen-UKOM, a UK online measurement company, as reported in the Telegraph

Link:
Is Social Networking Just for the Younger Generation?

Comic-Con 2012 begins Thursday night! As thousands continued to invade San Diego for a geek-ed out weekend, we have your complete schedule for everything TV tonight!

Here's the scoop on when and where your favorite TV show will host their panels, along with what participants will be discussing! Keep checking back throughout the weekend to get the latest TV gossip and news from Comic-Con!

Thursday, July 12 Panels

"Psych" (USA) 2:15 p.m. - Ballroom 20: James Roday (Shawn), Dule Hill (Gus), Corbin Bernsen (Henry), Maggie Lawson (Juliet), Timothy Omundson (Carlton), Kristen Nelson (Karen), and executive producers Steve Franks, Chris Henze and Kelly Kulchak

This is "Psych's" fourth consecutive year at Comic-Con. Attendees will get to see a never-before-seen "first look" at this fall's season seven.

Follow us

"Teen Wolf" (MTV) 2:30 p.m. - Room 6A: Tyler Posey (Scott), Dylan O'Brien (Stiles), Crystal Reed (Allison), Tyler Hoechlin (Derek), Holland Roden (Lydia) and Colton Haynes (Jackson) and executive producer Jeff Davis

"Teen Wolf" will be giving fans an exclusive first-look at a brand new episode. Those attending that panel will also get to see the world premiere trailer of "The Inbetweeners," MTV's new scripted comedy series.

"Beauty and the Beast" (CW), 3:30 p.m. - Ballroom 20: Kristin Kreuk (Catherine) Jay Ryan (Vincent) and executive producers Jennifer Levin, Sherri Cooper, Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders

"Beauty and the Beast" is a new show coming to the CW this fall. The series is described as a "modern adaptation of the beloved fairy tale." Those attending will get an exclusive viewing of the first episode.

Follow this link:
Comic-Con 2012 Schedule: The Complete Television Panel Lineup For Thursday, July 12