Football players fined because of Twitter: total rubbish or rightly deserved?

There’s no doubt that Twitter is THE social media hit at the moment. More and more people are setting up a Twitter-account and more and more football players are enjoying Twitter as well. These players share all kinds of stories and pictures from ‘behind the scenes’ with their followers (mostly fans). I follow players like Robin van Persie (@Persie_Official), Ruud van Nistelrooy (@RvN1776) and Cesc Fabregas (@cesc4official) myself as well and I’ve got to admit that it’s kind of fun to read about the everyday life of these players. I haven’t looked up a lot of other players yet but I think I will in the near future.

issues I want to discuss however are the cases in which a player gets fined because of a tweet. Several players had to cede a part of their salary due to a tweet that wasn’t appreciated by their own club, other clubs or the football association from the specific country involved. Probably the most commonly known Twitter-issue in Holland is the Twitpic fired onto the web by Ryan Babel (@RyanBabel), a Liverpool striker at the time. After losing the match against Manchester United, a game in which referee Howard Webb made some doubtful decisions (‘again!?’ will every Dutch person think after the lost World Cup final). Babel’s reaction after the game was a Tweet containing a picture of Howard Webb in a ManU-shirt accompanied by another Tweet with the words: “And they call him one of the best referees. That’s a joke. SMH” (SMH meaning ‘Shake My Head’). This whole saga ended with a fine (becoming the first player to be punished by the FA for Twitter actions).

I could now discuss lots of other cases in which players Tweet stuff that isn’t appreciated by some people; I think it’s more interesting however to look for reasons why players do this and to discuss where to draw the line on what’s a proper Tweet and what’s not. I mean it can be argued if it’s really offensive to post a picture like the one above. I think it’s more funny than rude and therefore a fine is not in place. However it should be considered that players are an example to a lot of (young) people and therefore should pay attention to what they say, whether it’s in an interview or on social media. I guess the truth lies within both statements, which makes it hard to judge all these cases. The key question on this issue is off course where to draw the line? What do you think?

Thanks for reading, hope u enjoyed it!!

Twillebrities?

Ben Saunders, a tattoo artist and MMA-fighter born in England, living in the Dutch city of Hoorn. A complete stranger to everybody, of whom was assumed that he would be bound to live a normal life like anyone else. This all changed drastically however, after Ben’s participation in the new tv-show ‘The voice of Holland’. After broadcasting the first episode (in which Ben was presented) a YouTube-hit was born. Ben Saunders’ name was settled already…

The voice of Holland was booming in the Netherlands, partly thanks to the amazing first performance of Ben. After reaching the live shows, the madness continued with two number one singles in the single top 100 and eventually by winning the competition. The popularity of The voice of Holland and its contestants created huge business opportunities and Vodafone being the main sponsor started a campaign which stimulated the use of social media. That is one of the reasons that the show became an even bigger success.

Ben Saunders has become a symbol in Holland because of his singing abilities and his extraordinary appearance, but the use of social media in ‘the voice’ made him one of the most popular Dutch twitter users as well. He is the living proof of the fact that Twitter is a medium that should certainly be taken into account. Twitter is a medium that allows celebrities to be in direct contact with their fans, making it more personal than any medium so far. Celebrities become Twillebrities when starting up a Twitter account (Ben Saunders already has almost 130.000 followers for example) and from then on, they should be careful what they tweet about. More about Twitter-problems soon however, this is it for today… Thanks for reading!!

UvT Webvideo

The main reason I'm blogging is that it is obligatory to pass my course of Business Information Technology. To do so, we had to create a web video as well, which contains an interview with someone from the department of communication. The video we created should be posted on the blog as well, so here you go... Enjoy!!

Priming, a (mind)tricky business..

I discussed the possible consequences and showed several examples of subliminal perception. Priming is a comparative process in which a stimulus activates knowledge structures. Word association is a good example of such a knowledge structure. I will explain to you what major influence priming can have by using several striking examples.

The most important thing to remember about priming is the word ‘accessibility’. By seeing a specific image or word, associations are activated and become more accessible. These words are now more ‘on top of your mind’ in comparison to other random words. Next to association, recency and vividness are other factors that influence this ‘on top of your mind’ness. For example, have you ever thought about the reason why a specific person is picked out of a large group when a charity organization like Greenpeace wants attention for the environmental problems? The key to this question lies with vividness. By setting a concrete (and therefore more vivid) example, it’s easier to remember and consequently easier to recall; it stays more accessible.

A good example to see the differences in perception because of priming:

People significantly overestimate the number of murders while they severely underestimate the number of burglaries. The reason: Priming. Because of the fact that murders are mentioned more frequently in the news than burglaries, this crime will be more active in one’s mind and therefore the amount of murders will be overestimated.

The last example doesn’t need very much of an explanation, just see for yourself how the mind of these people is tricked.

I hope you enjoyed reading my blog again, thanks for reading anyway ;)

Smartphones: A life changing technology

In this blog, I want to discuss the influence of smartphones on peoples’ lives nowadays. An interesting topic, because of the major differences in habits, pastime and staying in touch. In the pre-smartphone period, people used the internet mostly via a desktop or, if they wanted to be ‘mobile’, a laptop. Nowadays however, there is a certain amount of time spent on the Internet by the use of a smartphone. Whether you are looking up certain information about the weather, about departure times of trains or about a stupid fact that just wouldn’t come to mind fast enough, all this information can be accessed by a few clicks or even a few touches on your smartphone anywhere, and at any time.

I will now discuss this topic on my own experiences when I started using my Blackberry. That first, magical moment I had my smartphone and could use it for all those pointless and fun stuff can be considered a life changing moment. From this moment on, I discovered the convenient functions I mentioned (looking up information about a variety of topics) as well as I started to like Twitter and Facebook all of a sudden. At first, I was kind of skeptical about these social media, especially about Twitter. However, after being able to read and produce tweets from every location and at any time I was bored, it became much more interesting. Nowadays, the first thing I do when I wake up is checking my Twitter timeline to see if something interesting has been posted.

Another shift is the use of Blackberry Messenger and Whatsapp instead of texting. With my unlimited Internet contract, contacting people has become way cheaper, and still becomes cheaper since everyone who can pick a new phone will pick a smartphone. Therefore, almost everyone can be reached as much as you want for as long as you want without having to be cautious about the maximum amount of messages.

After reading this story I suppose you understand that I’m quite positive about this ‘new’ technology and I guess most of you will agree that it’s an enriching gadget to your life. A downside of the whole story is that you can get too obsessed by smartphone use as the following commercial shows, although it’s up to yourself to not let that happen ;).

Facebook vs. Hyves: which to choose?

The social media world is still expanding intensely in Holland. More and more people discover this way to stay in touch and follow your friends, family and acquaintances. Facebook is the most common social media website by far on a global scale with a market share of approximately 60 percent. In the Netherlands however, Hyves has been the leading social media platform and confirmed this status by subscribing the 10 miljonth member in 2010. Although Hyves is still a high roller on Dutch soil, a remarkable shift seems to be taking place concering social media in Holland. But which type of social media should you choose? Which type of social media is hotter? And which type of social media will still be alive and kickin’ 10 years from now? Don’t worry, I will list a score for you, so you can make the right decisions…

1. Research has shown that Facebook is growing rapidly over the last six months of 2010. As a comparison to Hyves, Facebook had a growth of unique visitors of nearly 50% whereas Hyves had a slight decrease of unique visitors (3%). Conclusion: Facebook is more popular at the moment (+1).

1-0 to Facebook

2. Another statistic from the research implies that Facebook keeps its visitors online longer on the website than its fellow social network Hyves does (approximately 19 minutes vs. 9 minutes). Conclusion: Facebook scores higher on engagement (+1).

2-0 to Facebook

3. Looking at the number of pageviews per visit, it can be noticed that Facebook is leading on this statistic as well: 29.1 pageviews for Facebook vs. 18.9 for Hyves. Conclusion: Facebook scores higher on this aspect of engagement as well (+1 again).

3-0 to Facebook.

Looks like a lost cause for Hyves.. However:

4. The same research as mentioned above has shown that Hyves visitors return to the site twice as much as do Facebook visitors (with an average of 30 visits a month vs. 15 visits a month for Facebook). Conclusion: Hyves wins the loyalty aspect (+1)

3-1

5. Looking at google searches, results were in favor of Hyves as well. Hyves was listed as the number 1 search on google whereas Facebook had to settle for 5th place. Conclusion: Hyves scores higher on curiosity (+1)

3-2

6. A final note that has to be made is the fact that Hyves has over 10 million members in the Netherlands versus 4,8 million Dutch Facebook-users. Conclusion: Hyves is still the biggest social media site in the Netherlands (+1).

3-3

That settles it. Based on this research I conclude it’s a draw. My own conclusion however: Facebook is the future. I will tell you why. Facebook is the growing social media site in Holland. It’s internationally accepted and used which implies that more and better apps and other gadgets will be available for your mobile phones, Ipads and personal computers. Next to these arguments, I could mention the usability of Facebook, which is way better in comparison to Hyves in my opinion. Another argument could be the image of Facebook. Hyves has a much more childish and small-scaled vibe to it whereas Facebook looks global and straightforward. Although my own preference is Facebook, I think Hyves surely can exist next to Facebook. The major reason I think this is the target group. Where Hyves should be focussing on the age-groups below 17 and above approximately 40, Facebook is much more useful for students, therefore the age-group from 18 years and older. This is a trend I see in my own surroundings as well.

Thanks for reading, I hope it’s been of any use to you!

What do Heineken, Coca cola, Nike and Axe have in common?

The answer to this question: good commercials. Due to a lack of inspiration for a stunning story this week, I will be discussing some commercials and advertising campaigns I personally like. This liking can have several reasons which I will be more than happy to share with you. So here we go:

1. Heineken

I like this commercial especially because of its humor. After seeing the first commercial on tv (and laughing my ass off every time I saw it), I was sure that this wouldn’t be topped by any other beer ad. However, Heineken then came up with the following commercial, the sequel of the previous one, which I like even better:

2. Coca cola

The thing I like most about the open happiness commercial is its simplicity. The clear message (Coca cola is for everyone) represents the brand in a great way. Using those bottles to express each group of persons is a surprisingly creative idea and by keeping it this simple, very little budget is spent on making the commercial as well, which implies this money could be spent on buying airtime.

3. Nike

Another commercial I really liked is a classic from Nike. They tried to create a tough image and wanted to be associated with skillful players like Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and several other big stars. Everyone will remember the football cage commercial, in which a huge number of Nike sponsored players compete in a knock-out tournament led by former football hero Eric Cantona. I think they succeeded in creating the cool image magnificently and I really enjoyed seeing this (already quite old) commercial again. The music is from our very own Dutch DJ Junkie XL by the way:

4. Axe

The deodorant brand Axe has made a great move by starting their Axe-effect campaign several years ago. A strong association with irresistible body odors and the attraction of beautiful girls has been created over the years called the Axe-effect. Since the start of this campaign (and the success), Axe came up with a variety of editions, corresponding to the new odors they introduced. It has proven to be a great campaign and I’ve enjoyed all Axe commercials so far, therefore, a few classics for you to enjoy:

Hope you enjoyed it! Turns out to be kind of a nice story after all I guess…

Subliminal Perception

Take a good look at the following republican (Bush vs. Gore) campaign video and pay close attention.

Did you see it? For those who didn’t, take another look and focus on the part where they talk about the democrats. See it now?

Well if you still didn’t I will tell you now, and even if you did, I’ll tell you anyway. The phenomenon that you just witnessed is called subliminal perception. If you take a look at the part where the text about the democrats appears, you can see the word RATS. The rest of the word democRATS pops up right after it but the damage might be done by then. The reason? Cues like this can shape peoples thoughts and encourage a certain behavior. Subliminal perception messages are usually not consciously noticed and therefore subliminal influencing is prohibited in most countries.

Another example: Marketing-researcher James Vicary conducted an experiment where subliminal text messages were repeatedly shown during a movie. The text messages were stated as “buy drinks” and “buy popcorn” and were shown for 0,03-seconds (which makes them invisible for the human eye). Vicary reported that the product sales significantly increased because of the subliminal messages.

Although it seems more than reasonable to ban subliminal advertising, I consider this measure unrealizable to some extent. Of course it shouldn’t be accepted when subliminal messages are applied in ways like those mentioned above, by showing texts that tell people what to do. Consider some of the following examples however:

Just smart marketing or unacceptable mindtricks? You decide...

Commercialization on its best: Super Bowl 2011

The 6^th of February 2011 was Super Bowl Sunday; the day that this year’s super bowl took place. The Super Bowl is an American Football match between the American Football League champion and the National Football League champion. This year’s final was between the Pittsburgh Steelers (AFC) and the Green Bay Packers (NFC). Although the Super Bowl is not very well-known in Holland, it is one of the two sports events with the highest viewership (the other event is the in Europe better known Champions League final). The Super Bowl attracts a whopping 100 million viewers worldwide and this makes the intermissions during the match an exclusive opportunity to expose your brand to this huge audience. The Super Bowl therefore isn’t just a sports event.

First of all it has become a tradition for a great number of brands to launch a new commercial or an advertising campaign during the Super Bowl. This year, 61 new commercials were introduced for a great variety of brands and products (costs: about 2 million dollars per 30 seconds). There is a downside to this commercialization in American sports however. I enjoy watching something special like the Super Bowl for example, but I can imagine that I would get pretty annoyed by all those commercial breaks and sponsorship announcements if you are watching a regular season match.

A compilation of all 61 commercials:

My personal favorite:

Next to the tsunami of commercials, the traditional half-time show is another event within the Super Bowl. This year’s performance was given by the Black Eyed Peas, the U.S. National Anthem was sung by Christina Aguilera (incorrectly by the way).

The half-time show:

I knew about the existence of the Super Bowl for some years now, but this year was the first time I actually watched a part of the show and I must say that I really enjoyed it. The commercialization, the vibe around the whole event, the typical American rituals you see; I’m definitely watching again next year! I recommend you to do the same…

Oh and the Green Bay Packers won the game by the way, but that’s just a detail.

The fall of Mubarak and the ‘Twitter-revolution’.

Eighteen days of protests by over a million people have forced the Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to resign. This message was followed by massive celebrations in Egypt and popped up all over the world on televisions, radios and newspapers. However, other types of media played a key role in making this revolution happen.

The media I’m addressing to are social media like Twitter and Facebook. By using these social media, individuals were able to see that they were not the only rebels protesting against Mubarak’s strict regime. It‘s important to note that these individuals using social media were mostly young and educated people. Because of their access to these media they could communicate and share information all day long; they were able to encourage all those people in the streets of Cairo in order to keep the momentum going.

Anyway, despite the role of social media, I don’t think this evolution should be called a Twitter-revolution. In order to call it that way, a Twitter-revolution should be defined as a revolution supported by Twitter, NOT a revolution that is evoked by Twitter (which the word Twitter-revolution implies). The role of social media in this revolution is evident, but in my opinion it merely refers to a new element in revolutions worldwide: a new way to connect demonstrators within a country as well as their compatriots abroad, that reinforces the opposition and which is harder to censor. I guess if you consider it this way, you could call it a Twitter-revolution after all…