TED Conversations

Questions First

This conversation is closed.

Social media can amplify your voice but how come it doesn't happen very often?

You probably heard hundreds of times already about how social media can help you make your voice heard. One of the examples mentioned to prove this is the “United breaks guitar” video, which had 150,000 views in one day and 10 million in less than 6 months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars

I know that there are thousands of examples, but considering that there are billions of Facebook posts and tweets every day, the number of the stories actually being amplified is insignificant.

Which made me think: how does this happen? Is it random? Do you need to have man followers, which will share your posts to their followers and so on? Should you post sensitive or controversial topics, which are more likely to make others share? Does it help to be aggressive and share the same post repeatedly on several social media platforms?

Topics: social media
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 11 2013: Social media is an enabler. It enables people to communicate. The advantage being that is much more accessible than other communication technologies. Reducing the economic restrains on the communicators. But if you don't have a communication strategy you won't communicate much. The democratizing nature of Internet provides people with the means. But not with the ideas, know how or capabilities.
    • Jun 11 2013: Very well put, Guido.

      Social media offer an opportunity, not a certainty, to amplify your voice. The viral nature of the internet can allow for random messages, videos, etc. to reach a huge audience, but the random viral sensation is rare. In order to have an impact on a social network, you must create an engaged following, consistently curate interesting information, and ultimately find a way to stand out in a crowded sea of voices.
      • Jun 11 2013: Right. Current success stories were possible thanks to a group of people - who had already identified an objective, which choose social networks as their tool. For example the late events on Egypt. Seems to me we could find two different stages which responded to different objectives. First it was local organization through social networks. And later on it was the exposure of the situation to international public opinion. The orchestrators of these events had developed a strategy - independently of its formality.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.