In Chapter 2 of “Personal Connections in the Digital Age,” Nancy K. Baym briefly mentions that resistance to new technology often comes from people most in the position to utilize it. People who value social barriers tend to resent the fact that technology can connect them to the “wrong kinds” of people. Baym uses an anecdote from the introduction of the telephone to illustrate how technology can create the potential for intrusion. The mayor of New York City began receiving phone calls from citizens excited about the unprecedented level of access to a governmental figure, although the elite perceived the attempted communication as invasive. This phenomenon is reminiscent of celebrities’ and corporations’ recent attempts to engage with social media, as Twitter campaigns and publicized Tumblr accounts often backfire in embarrassing or otherwise damaging ways.
Because public figures often do not accurately predict how users will interact with campaigns like sponsored hashtags, they are left with a public relations nightmare that can find them resenting the need for a social media presence in the first place. Earlier this year, Robin Thicke encouraged fans to submit questions using the hashtag #AskThicke, which was almost exclusively used to comment on the singer’s controversial single “Blurred Lines.” The New York Police Department was presented with a more severe problem when people used the hashtag #myNYPD to post pictures of police brutality rather than the friendly photo-ops with officers the agency had intended. Although the unintended responses to such campaigns can be enlightening, it is very possible that the campaigns’ orchestrators find themselves questioning the need to make their brand accessible to the general public in such a direct way.
Social media complicates what used to be a more simple relationship between product/personality and consumer because corporations and public figures might not like what people online have to say about them when they are forced to interact in such a direct way. While unsuccessful Twitter campaigns parallel anecdotes like that about the mayor’s phone, there is one crucial difference: the mayor of New York City was not actively engaging the public. New media is an important method of communication, but in order for it to be used successfully marketers have to think more critically about how consumers are likely to respond to obvious advertising given the often cynical nature of the internet.
Very interesting topic. While I think new digital technologies definitely allow for increased interactivity amongst groups that traditionally would have been kept separate, I think it would also be interesting to consider how new media actually helps to preserve historical divisions. These days, governmental organizations, NGOs, and private corporations alike try to maintain a highly visible web presence in order to preserve the illusion of transparency that modern civilians so adamantly demand. Still, there’s a great deal of information that the uninitiated simply do not have access to. I think we have to be careful to take these organizations’ ostensible support of transparency with a grain of salt.
Not relevant to your main point, but still pretty interesting (to me, anyway): All of those small acts of rebellion you point out in your post (#AskThicke, #myNYPD, etc.) were manifested in very controlled spaces. Would criticism of this kind have occurred if the NYPD hadn’t started the hashtag and, however unintentionally, kickstarted the conversation? What does it mean if these acts of rebellion are fundamentally guided by the dominant power?
I really appreciated the examples you gave of unintended uses of hashtags. It really solidified the affordances concept for me. The affordances of hashtags are to be a relevancy, organizational, search engine like tool in social media. But Robin Thicke’s PR and the NYPD couldn’t control the publics alternate use of their hashtags. So I agree with your last statement that there has to be critical thinking about the other uses social media can take on.