October 30th, 2009 / 5:00 pm
When I was a kid, I was into electronics and shortwave radio in a big way, and one of the technical terms I heard about then was ‘signal to noise ratio.’ In the radio listening context, I took this to mean how much of the radio station you could hear versus the all the noise in the background (and there is no shortage of ‘static’ on shortwave, as a dwindling band of fellow die-hard enthusiasts would know).
These days, I notice that the signal to noise expression is being used all the time by people into social networks. In most cases, it seems to mean getting the content online that you want that adds value, as opposed to extraneous clutter information that wastes your time. It strikes me as an apt expression, party because there’s so little quality content these days and way too much junk out there.
I have certainly noticed that people really do appreciate quality content when they see it. On Facebook from 2007, and then Twitter from 2008, and now more recently Friendfeed, I’ve been trying to share what I think is ’signal’ from the media that I consume every day. Usually I’ll post what I regard as interesting articles in areas of personal interest (PR, psychology, media, propaganda, renewable energy, radio, maps and the environment), accompanied by a brief commentary reflecting my own opinion. So, I’ve basically been selecting stories for the ’front page’ of my ‘lifestream’ and drafting comments and questions, leaving the heavy writing to the authors whose articles I forward.
A few folks have proactively let me know that they appreciate this approach; here’s one example:
“Hey Bob! Thanks for bringing the collective IQ of my FB page up. As I scroll down the updates and see lines of ‘How well do you know so and so’ and ‘My kids just spilled the Q-tips’ I see your notes on the demise of the Aral Sea…like accidentally stumbling across NPR during a Jerry Springer episode.”
Lately, though, several people have been encouraging me to articulate my own long-form opinions, so this new blog is my way of transmitting some signal of my own rather than just relaying that of others.
I’m looking forward to sharing ideas and insights with you.
- Communicating crowdsourcing
- Overseas communications for Chinese multinationals
- BBC World News live TV interview
- Visualizing the rise and fall of marketing monikers
- The climate change PR disaster
- Humanitarianism in the network age
- climate change
- crisis communications
- guest post
- media relations
- national brand
- PR industry
- social media
- speaking platforms
- When ‘liking’ a brand online voids the right to sue: http://t.co/JDVubs2HoL | Lawyers running amok in social media | via @nytimes
- Negotiation styles around the world: http://t.co/NgAnpoZxby | I like some elements of the supposed Canadian, Hong Kong and Singapore styles
- Some clever comments on barriers to climate change communication and how it will take war-like fears to drive action: http://t.co/M68U9mLhQ1
- Users engage with major social networks predominantly via mobile: http://t.co/Bp9VSkio6H | via @datagems | Except @linkedin and @tumblr
- Three 'distance fields’ for communications: 'intimate space,' 'personal space,' & 'social space:' http://t.co/SiXYhJOM2M
- RT @wearesocialsg: Everything you need to know about social, digital, and mobile in China [new stats-rich report]: http://t.co/FxgEKlOxJ8
- I just read 'the necessary art of persuasion:' http://t.co/SVqCGuL3f9 | The classic @HarvardBiz article well stands the test of digital time
- Just what we need; yet another intrusion of sensory assault marketing into public space... http://t.co/sMzcv25ZpN
- These IPCC press releases are part of the problem communicating climate change: http://t.co/I3CawDpYF1 | Institutional constraints apparent