I hope to use this blog to explore the nexus between new media and the 2012 Presidential Campaign- at all different levels. To start, here’s a very superficial look at how the candidates are using Facebook. The following are the number of “likes” as of July 09, 2011 for each of the declared Republican presidential candidates:

• Mitt Romney 1,031,700
• Michelle Bachmann 414,107
• Herman Cain 147,795
• Newt Gingrich 142,056
• Gary Johnson 126,426
• Tim Pawlenty 103,049
• Ron Paul 29,767
• Rick Santorum 23,374
• Jon Huntsman 9,111
• Fred Karger 2,048
• Thaddeus McCotter 1,009
• Andy Martin 568 (Facebook Friends)

One of the above will compete against President Obama in the 2012 election. As of July 09, the President has 21 million, 968 thousand 390 (21,968,390) likes. 

So how does Miranda explain this apathy among us college students? Brilliantly:

I call it an inflexible system. Education has a fresh cornucopia of potential tools that have not been utilized to potential. That is a shame, and a failure on the part of the system to adapt.

As a student of marketing and public relations, one of the first things any budding professional is taught is to identify your audience. Identify your audience. Professors now have a very different audience today than professors even 10 years ago. My generation was raised with toys. With gadgets. My generation has a high processing speed and a low tolerance for filler. My generation learns in bullet points and status updates of 140 characters or less. Most importantly, my generation is endlessly engaged with a wide online community. This is the audience.

And moreover, this should be any professor’s dream. You have a venue for innovation!

She’s right. And it’s not just social media. As many of you know, I’ve made social media in education a big priority in my college life with the AU Social Media Club, but this isn’t just social media we’re talking about. It’s a simple failure to acknowledge passion and creativity, and a massive failure to help student unlock those passions in innovative ways.

Let me put this in some context. I’ll be blunt—I’m not a fan of my international business course. It’s not because I don’t like business; In fact, I love business. One of my degrees is a B.S. in Business Administration and the Kogod School of Business has been an outstanding place for me to unlock my business potential. But this one class is a failure, largely because our professor is deaf and blind to the needs, wants, and passions of our generation.

So far, the course has consisted of long—as in two and a half hour long—lectures, very little homework, two exams, and a significant group “business plan” project in which we develop our own international business. Sounds cool? Sort of. The problem is that it’s boring and honestly, couldn’t unleash the passion of even the most hardened and fascinated international business major. Our professor tries to be “hip” by encouraging us to text him (+ points), but then fails to grasp even the most basic functions of BlackBoard (- points). He tries to discuss current events (+ points), but then fails to mention anything about the state of the media (- points), how we’re receiving this news (- points), or what this news means in the context of our real lives (- points).

But I don’t mean to single out this one class. There are numerous classes—at every university, I’m sure—that can benefit from a more modern approach. An approach that utilizes modern technology, encourages discussion and debate, asks students where and how they get their information and why they get it where they do. An approach that allows students to express their knowledge in whatever way they know how—whether that’s building a website, tweeting a thousand times a month, starting a group on Facebook, or putting together a good old-fashioned scrapbook.

Miranda nailed it right on the head—our education needs flexibility. It needs to adapt not just to modern students, but to each and every one of us.

This might sound like we’re asking a lot, but really, we’re not. We’re asking that our professors use the time and the resources at their disposal to unlock our passion in new and innovative ways. We’re asking that they step outside of their comfort zone as we step outside of ours. We’re asking that as we work our asses off for that perfect grade, they do the same to not only help us reach that grade, but reach it in a way that gets us excited about the next course in that subject area.

I want to walk out of every class—regardless of the topic—feeling like I should major in it. I want to be that passionate about my classes. I want to care. I really, really, do.

So see? It’s not that we don’t want to care. I think I speak for most of us when I say: yes, we want to care, we want to be passionate. But unfortunately our education isn’t always stepping up to the plate.

Want to know more about the AU Social Media Club? E-mail us at smcedu@american.edu. Are you a student at AU and want to get involved? Sign up for our mailing list here.

I’ve grown up in a world that is increasingly connected and digital. Emotions, thoughts, ideas, passions, as well as money, business, commerce, and research, all take place online. Communicated. Transformed. Developed. That’s the world as we live it.

It’s not the same for those that grew up before us. Even those born in the late 70s don’t quite see the world the same as we do, I don’t think. David Carr’s media column today in the New York Times, “Film Version of Zuckerberg Divides Generations”, really underscores these differences, I think–on an even deeper level than just technology. A key paragraph:

Many older people will watch the movie, which was No. 1 at the box office last weekend, and see a cautionary tale about a callous young man who betrays friends, partners and principles as he hacks his way to lucre and fame. But many in the generation who grew up in a world that Mr. Zuckerberg helped invent will applaud someone who saw his chance and seized it with both hands, mostly by placing them on the keyboard and coding something that no one else had.

Put simply, I couldn’t agree more. The world I know is one where the possibilities are endless. Where, honestly, collaboration is often pushed aside in the name of innovation and success. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, I’m just saying… it is.

Zuckerberg, in a lot of ways, really embodies our generation (or at least our generation from my point of view, in the “bubble” or not). He’s a little socially awkward. He doesn’t care as much about his personal image as he does the success of his company. He doesn’t care as much about success and wealth as he does innovation and influence. He’ll do anything to become who he wants to be, and let no one stop in his way. He’s connected, tech-savvy, smart, creative. He gets how others think, just not always the what or why we think what we think. Maybe it’s just me… but I can relate to pretty much all of that.

In some ways, I hesitate to suggest that our generation is somehow special or different than those that came before us. After all, almost every young generation that comes along tends to believe it is somehow different, somehow more unique and revolutionary than the last generation. Many argue–including myself in the past–that really no generation is terribly unique, that we all go through stages of conflict, of innovation, of rebellion, and then assimilation into the world as it moves on, with or without our generation.

More and more, I don’t think that’s the case. I think that now, for perhaps the first time since the industrial revolution, our generation embodies a dramatic shift in thought in the world. We think differently about, well, almost everything. About the way we communicate, the way we do business, and the way we create knowledge. We view the world differently and are generally hyper-aware of the diversity of cultures, as well as our interconnectedness. Bringing my point home, I think a lot of that has to do with the Internet, with new definitions of “media” and “social”, and to a certain extent, with Mark Zuckerberg.

What do you think? Does Zuckerberg represent us? Is this “digital divide” much bigger than just between income levels and race? Is it between generations, and does it represent much more than an ability to use technology–but in fact an entire way of living our lives and pursuing our dreams? Go read David Carr’s column today, then let me know.

Facebook will larger than Google by the year 2013.

A pretty bold claim, huh? My rationale is threefold:

1. Facebook is huge, already. In 2007, they were already the fifth largest Internet company in the world. Recent reports have pegged their valuation anywhere between $30 billion and $70 billion, and there shows no signs of slowing down. Google, meanwhile, has a market cap of just over $165 billion. Two years–I think it’s possible. Regardless Facebook isn’t slowing down, it seems.
2. Facebook gets social. Socially awkward though he might be, Mark Zuckerberg gets what people want when it comes to social networks. He gets it so much, in fact, that he ignores everything users complain about and makes changes whether they like it or not… which they usually end up liking. Remember the news feed? Everyone hated it. Now it’s the most iconic feature of Facebook and has become a fundamental characteristic of the modern-day social network (*ahem* Twitter). Google, on the other hand, clearly doesn’t get social networking. Not one of their “social” products has really succeeded–certainly not on the level of Facebook–and most of their recent forays, such as Google Buzz have practically been laughed out of the industry. I don’t even consider it polite to bring up the travesty that was Google Wave.
3. Facebook has no competition. Google has competition. Microsoft’s Bing has proven itself a surprisingly worthy competitor, and various other niche-based search engines seem to be much more nimble than Google. Look at LinkedIn’s Signal, for example. It outdoes Google’s social search by a wide margin, and Google simply doesn’t have the data on it’s users to compete. In some ways, Google has simply stretched themselves too thin.

I could go on, but those form the foundation for my side of the bet. Facebook is huge, and it’s far bigger than people realize. Google is still big, and I don’t think they’ll disappear by 2013 by any means. But I am confident they’ll find Facebook a formidable competitor, for sure.

We’ll find out. October 2, 2013, Justin Herman and I will compare numbers, and go out to eat. Only one of us will pick up the tab.

If nothing else, the movie made me appreciate Zuckerberg’s work even more. It’s something to be respected, really. If I had the guts or the brilliance to come up with an idea like that, I’d hope people would think the same of me. And you know what? If I had so-called “friends” from college who wanted to try to take it from me, I’d fight like hell in and out of court to keep their grubby hands off of it, too.

In a lot ways, I’m jealous–like I’m sure many of us are. Here’s Mark Zuckerberg, barely five years older than I am, and already the 35th richest person in the world. One of the founders of an entirely new way of communicating–of living, even. He’s changed the world, significantly and quickly, and that’s absolutely mind-blowing. I want that. I want to change the world that quickly, that positively. Don’t we all?

The movie does say one thing about Mark, accurately, I think: that the money doesn’t mean anything to him. And it shouldn’t. It’s never about the money. When I make enough to survive and live a decent lifestyle, money becomes unimportant. It’s about the influence, the popularity, and the feeling of accomplishment. Especially that last one. And given that probably 95% of everything we do in life is striving for influence, popularity, or professional success (money included), I don’t think any of us have the right to criticize him. The man just donated $100 million to Newark public schools for chrissakes. Public relations stunt or not, it’s one hundred effing dollars and we should questioning motives and let him be a good person like, apparently, he wants to be.

Anyway, it was a good movie. Go see it. It might make you think, but not about what you thought it would make you think about. Does that make sense?

That’s what the AMP Summit, being held today and tomorrow here in Washington, D.C., is all about–and so far, it’s a fantastic conference.

This morning I had the pleasure of volunteering with registration at the conference, which earned me a free ticket and the chance to bump into more than few cool people right from the get-go. Once off my shift, I attended a session on online advertising with representatives from Aol, Google, and Facebook–lots of good content, albeit mixed in with some heavy sales pitches and brand plugs.

Not a whole lot of time to discuss it much right now, but if you’d like to keep up with the conference be sure to follow the hashtag, #AMP10, and check their website to follow along with the schedule of events. And of course, follow me on Twitter for all of my own exciting updates and commentary.

Privileged Straight White Male Technology Executives

Tynan points out Danah Boyd’s fun little acronym, PSWMTE, to refer to Zuckerberg right off the bat–because evidently pulling random demographic stereotypes into a long unwieldy acronym solidifies an argument about privacy–indicating that these PSWMTEs simply don’t care about your average Joe.

Let’s try a new acronym: BASJOSSI.

Baseless Accusation by So-called Journalist with an Overinflated Sense of Self Importance.

Grow up, before you attempt to kick off a long rant that you actually want people to take seriously. And, without further ado, begins my long rant.

Those Stats Are Irrelevant

Tynan points to some new conclusions in a PC Tools and Harris Interactive poll as support for his argument that users still care about privacy:

• Four out of five Americans want to keep files on their computers private from others — whether it’s their coworkers (48 percent), boss (42 percent), friends (40 percent), children (29 percent), parents (26 percent), or spouse (17 percent).
• Nearly half (45 percent) say they’d be embarrassed if those other folks saw some of the stuff they have on their PC, smartphone, wonder tablet, etc.

Now maybe it’s just me, but I’m really failing to see what the hell this has to do with privacy. Last I heard, even those pesky Facebook privacy settings can’t force you to reveal the entire contents of your computer’s hard drive, nor does it blast an LCD projection of your phone everywhere you go. These numbers are absolutely meaningless for the sake of this argument.

“…ignoring how people really feel about their privacy… is a recipe for disaster.” Sure.

That statement in and of itself is ridiculous. If that were true, then please explain to me, Mr. Tynan, how not only is Mark Zuckerberg now the 35th richest man in the world, but Facebook’s valuation has approximately tripled since 2009 and they continue to grow at a phenomenal rate. That sure tells me that people care a lot about their privacy… please note that sarcasm.

It’s All About the Illusion

When it comes right down to it people like Mr. Tynan and Danah Boyd are complaining about privacy because they legitimately think it’s a legitimate concern, and because they just want to be sure that it’s not really an emergency. It’s like screaming “fire” and hoping the sprinklers come on, just to make sure they work. Everyone wants to know those privacy safeguards are there, whether or not there’s actually a reason for them. So they constantly complain about how dangerous our lack of privacy is, despite the fact that there’s certainly no emergency–in fact, most Web privacy concerns are just plain wrong.

Why? Because deep down inside, way down, our culture is way over privacy. We (and I mean a collective “we”) passed up privacy in the 90s. We share everything–often, too much information about everything (the acronym TMI didn’t come out of nowhere, folks)–and the idea that now, of all times, we should actually be concerned about privacy… well, give me a break.

We’re no more concerned about privacy on Facebook now than we are buying textbooks on Amazon.com. We care less about what people know about our personal lives than we do care about how much milk is in the fridge. And we could care less what anyone does with the information we give them, as long as they pretend like it’s nice and safe and secure.

Eventually, we’ll be over that illusion of privacy, too. That’s probably a ways off, but boy I’m sure Zuckerberg dreams about that every night. What a world it would be if people stopped bitching about how secure their information was, and just learned to live as better people who didn’t have to worry about embarrassing secrets getting out. Think about that one.