![]() Social media management systems enable engaging with the whole social media spectrum at once, often with backend analytics that show which networks generate the most interest and ROI for companies. Regardless of flare-ups between networks, for instance, users can still push out messages to Twitter and LinkedIn simultaneously or interact with pics on both Instagram and Twitter or just hop between platforms without headaches - kind of like in the good old days. Switzerlands in an increasingly polarized social media world, these systems allow Twitter, Facebook and other social feeds to coexist side-by-side on one page, in perfect harmony. Frustrated companies are increasingly turning to social media management systems, software tools that offer equal access to all the big networks from one interface (My company, HootSuite, is one of these). And with walls between platforms so high, it’s harder than ever for content to truly go viral and skip across the web.Īs social networks have grown less user friendly, however, a parallel industry has flourished. Posts, photos and videos that once flowed easily across networks now need to be modified and uploaded on multiple sites. With networks increasingly isolated, organizations are having to pour resources into bespoke strategies and content for each and every platform. While this newly splintered social landscape has miffed casual users, for companies who have invested deeply in social media marketing it’s proving a serious liability. From a communication standpoint, social media has taken a giant leap backward. Yet as networks have battened down the hatches, this easy give and take has become harder and harder. In a perfect social media universe, content would flow readily between these platforms, adapting to the demands of different formats while reinforcing one message. For most people and brands, being walled into one network-no matter how robust it is-is hardly ideal.ĭifferent platforms have different strengths, from career-building to cat-video-sharing, and reach different audiences.Ī consumer company like Coca-Cola, for example, might leverage Twitter for breaking news, Facebook for fan giveaways, Instagram for photo campaigns and LinkedIn for recruiting. ![]() “ it comes to online social networks, the interests of the companies that run them do not always align (and may well conflict) with the interests of users,” notes The Economist. While this may strictly speaking be good for business, it’s not always good for users. (In practical terms, this is accomplished by having an open API, a public, accessible interface for letting outside sites tap into user and programming data.) Initially, being open with other networks-sharing users and data as part of a cooperative ecosystem -makes sense. Under the prevailing tech paradigm, a social network’s first responsibility is growth: to amass as many users in as short a time as possible. For ordinary users and businesses, the prognosis isn’t good.įrom a business perspective, the logic behind recent moves by Twitter, Facebook and the other networks isn’t hard to unravel. In its place: a balkanized social media landscape of splintered, siloed networks who just can’t seem to get along. Largely gone is the harmonious and open social ecosystem of yore. “We'd just really like to see our Vine videos on Facebook and our Instagram snaps on Twitter. “We simply want any app we use that is owned by either of you to interact seamlessly, the way they used to,” implores Mashable deputy editor Chris Taylor. Meanwhile, Google has begun aggressively pushing its Google+ sign-ins on third-party sites as an alternative to the ubiquitous Facebook Connect.įor users who remember the not-too-distant days when Facebook, Twitter and other social networks played nice together - and content jumped effortlessly across platforms - recent rifts have been nothing short of maddening. Last year, Twitter removed a feature that allowed users to post tweets to LinkedIn, while also cutting off Google’s access to real-time search data. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |