Rough Draft of the not so “Zen of Social Media Marketing”




Chapter 1 – Successful marketing steps: attract, convert, transform

Chapter 2 – Websites, social media integration, and blogging

Chapter 3 – Search Engine Optimization

Chapter 4 – Social media marketing: why, how to use, which to use

Chapter 5 – “Facebook”

Chapter 6 – “Twitter”

Chapter 7 – “LinkedIn”

Chapter 8 – “Google+”

Chapter 9 – Social Advertising – Groupon, LivingSocial etc.

Chapter 10 – Video (she calls this the most powerful)

Chapter 11 – Creating a social media policy for business


Technological Determinism: Chapter 4, 5-8

–       here is the technology, and here is how it affects us

Social Construction*: Blogging, Facebook, Twitter Chapter 2, 5, 6

–       how interaction on this media can help marketing a company

–       *mainly takes this approach

Social Shaping:

–       online ability to market (and be successful) comes both from technology and from people’s use of technology


–       How these processes are becoming normal in marketing

–       The way it attracts, integration, facebook



–       Shama stresses the fact of having a good foundation and being honest with clients/customers/audience



–       creating the brand, individualization

–       who are you?

–       Website construction, Social media use, and blogging


Audience for the book:

–       Older generation

–       Little to no experience using SNS

–       Business owners that need help transitioning in the new age of technology driven markets


–       Terribly boring book, not interesting

–       Too intensive on information that is already clear/obvious

–       Very self-promotional

–       Facts/statistics in the book are not supported

Space Invaders

Remember KONY 2012?  Remember creator Jason Russell’s stark-naked freakout?  Well what I’m about to lay down for you has absolutely nothing to do with any of this ish.

Remember Tyler Clementi?  Okay, okay, but orange you glad I didn’t say banana?  Seriously though, jokes aside, if you don’t know who Clementi is, maybe you are familiar with the efforts of the Trevor Project?  Danielle Radcliffe…Lady Gaga…Bueller?  If bells aren’t ringing – besides the obvious fact that you live under a rock, and possibly, might not understand English – I’ll break it down real quickly for you:

Tyler Clementi was an 18 year old Rutgers freshman.  A couple of days before leaving the old Buffalo nest, he told his parents he was gay.  He also did something that I’m sure all of us did upon receiving our housing assignments at NYU; Tyler looked up his roommate, Dharun Ravi, online.  He quipped to friends over IM about Ravi’s ethnic background, and Ravi similarly judged Clementi.  Subsequent to moving in, both boys hardly interacted, and wouldn’t see one another for days at a time.  I don’t know much about where you dormed, but let me just say, it would take some intense sort of uncomfortable pressure, and grand effort to avoid my freshy fish roommate.

Weinstein didn’t give me much a chance anyways.

But back to the dudes – one night, Clementi basically texted Ravi and asked if he could have some alone time in the room.  Some space.  Apparently worried about theft, Ravi left his computer (slash webcam) on and in a skeptical position.  While viewing this stream from another room, Ravi and a companion (Molly Wei) watched Clementi kissing another man, both with their shirts off and pants on.  Ravi blasted off comments about the private content on his Twitter.

In another incident shortly after, Ravi posted information about a “Clementi viewing party”, this time inviting friends to watch with him, along with instructions on how to view it from wherever else anyone wanted to.  Clementi, noting the camera was on, and turned in a rather apprehensive angle, unplugged the power cord.

Tyler wrote extensively about how this bothered him on Yahoo! message boards and the website Just Us Boys.  He even filed a complaint with his residential advisor after reading Ravi’s tweets, realizing Ravi had web-streamed the first incident, and intended on publicizing a second sexual encounter.  Tyler asked to be placed into a new room.

About a day after this, Clementi posted a status update on his Facebook, “Jumping off the gw bridge sorry.”  His body was recovered from the Hudson River a week later.

This is all relevant, because about two days ago, Dharun Ravi, among other things, was found “guilty of multiple counts of  invasion of privacy” by a New Jersey court.  Reporter Megan DeMarco summarizes this as, “Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation.”

In class, private versus public became a clear thematic principle, but emerged with rather hazy margins.  Boyd and Marwick had us asking, what IS privacy?  Tbh, I was pretty stumped myself.  What the eff is privacy?  I can think about it, and somehow I just know it, but how do you explain it to someone else?  And if the text, “Social Steganography: Privacy in Networked Publics” rings true, then “all teens have a sense of privacy, although their definitions of privacy vary widely.”  I feel like this concept asks us to assume that Ravi and Clementi have different interpretations of privacy, since Clementi’s suicide/uncomfortableness was clearly a result of Ravi’s exposing too much on a SNS.   But then according to the law, Ravi crossed the line.  So if everyone has a different perspective on what privacy is, how can someone invade it?  How can this be when Boyd and Marwick say that “a universal notion of privacy remains enigmatic”?  The conclusion is this:  Social norms act as a “regulatory force.”  These standards, called norms,  are  universal.  Majority of people, like Tyler, would not want their sexual interactions displayed/ridiculed online and streamed on the web.  This is where we get the idea that this is WRONG.

In the article, “As Soon As You Get On Bebo You Just Go Mad,” Willett explains that “questions are raised about young people’s understanding of privacy, trust, and credibility.”  Although she doesn’t go into detail, Willett notes that there are “high profile concerns such as harmful contact and content (e.g. cyberbullying).”  Referencing the fact that there are specific actions, in Clementi’s case, web-based bullying, that are seen as out of line means that there is a common understanding among people.  It seems that regardless of privacy being about intimate space, there are universal boundaries that outline what is unjust.

It seems privacy isn’t as ambiguous a thought as we think, but it is being incessantly invaded and paraded on the Internet.

One last feature to finish off this discussion of privacy: a cartoon from The New Yorker highlights the privacy issues we encounter as online social-network users.   How do we control this content release?  Is this essentially possible?  AND before I finally leave you (I know, boo-hoo, don’t be so sad) do you think that Facebook and Google+ releasing personal information you attribute to the site is an invasion of privacy?


What ever happened to picking up the phone and calling someone?

While Dr. Beer takes it upon himself to reconfigure Boyd and Ellison’s SNS breakdown, a part of me – a rather snarky one, might I add – feels like I have to contest his attitude.  I was completely blown out of the water when he started bragging about his editorial…before it had even gotten to page two; “This is likely to become a highly referenced article that could well shape these emerging debates, for this reason their article requires some attention before the dust settles on the path forward” (Beer 517).  At least buy me dinner first, man.  I mean really, who is this guy?  What gives him any more qualification than Boyd or Ellison?  And that’s when I decided to Google him.   Yes, I did just use Google as a verb. His article came in, BAM, first hit.  Below that was the “5 Social Networks For Beer Lovers” and below that, our csmt12 WordPress Blog.  I didn’t get very far into Dr. Beer before realizing there was nothing on him.  (I’ll give you this one Beer, but we will meet again.)  Phooey. So I decided to pacify my teenage angst, just for an hour or two, and go along with it.

Before I go on about the response to “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship,” I should probably talk about Boyd and Ellison for a bit.  After all, you can’t watch Kingsley’s response to Rebecca Black’s Friday (, enjoy) without first watching her actual music video (here:  I’m assuming you’re Internet savvy enough to know who and what I’m talking about, keep up.

Boyd and Ellison start by defining social network sites, and reasoning as to why they are not known as social networking sites.  The two begin to outline the backbone of most of these SNSs (public profiles and a list of “friends”).  To these authors, a public showcase of friends is often a defining point of SNSs, although most don’t have it.   Extremely relevant, and almost necessary in some way, Ellison and Boyd go into the history of these sites, and how much of what we just know, came to be.  The rise and fall of Friendster, the popularity of MySpace in 2004 to its pitiful slump as a deplorable, in other words, “jank,” network.   Gross, you have a MySpace?  They then go into relationships, site structure, online and offline structures, security, and other measures.

Although Boyd and Ellison decided to analyze social network sites, Dr. Beer (remember him?) takes another approach.  He justifies that this fairly new phenomenon should be tackled from a new perspective.  Beer redesigns the way for people to investigate social network sites, and revisits points of take off that Ellison and Boyd made; including their definition, theory, and future.  He explains that although the two have defined SNSs concretely, that this is a major problem.  Since the Internet is constantly changing and developing (along with these sites), it’s very difficult to pinpoint an enduring definition.  Additionally, he admits there should be more classification and differentiation, and explains that certain sites we believe to be SNSs aren’t; such as Youtube, because it doesn’t allow such a relationship to other people.  He criticizes Boyd and Ellison’s theory involving online and offline communities.   But Dr. Beer says that the sense of friend on an SNS is not entirely different from a friend in real life.  There’s even a blog for online friends (  (Why, I ask you??)  In terms of future reference, he says that we should answer who and what are using certain SNS sites, and why.  He also insists that people should look at SNSs in an alternate context, that these are “commercial spaces.”

Although I think that Dr. Beer is too harsh on Boyd and Ellison (chill bro, they were here first), I think that their industrialized definition of an SNS, is terribly flawed.  For some reason, I’ve found that for people who haven’t grown up in a generation bottle-fed by Neopets and Club Penguin, there is this irrational desire to “define” these cultural changes, explain what’s going on, and to classify certain components.  Facebook is this, Facebook does this, and Facebook is used for this.  I’ve heard it all, especially from older generations like my parents.  Don’t get me started on what they say about texting.  But for me, Ellison and Boyd’s fault was differentiating social network from social networking.  Believe that our generation doesn’t use these things to meet people we don’t know, or to network through them is completely false; take LinkedIn or Craigslist for example.  This article in the Huffington Post, further illustrates how Gen. Y has changed the use of the Internet and expanded our reach.  These people weren’t brought up with it, and do not utilize these tools as much as young adults, and for that reason, I find it very difficult believe these authors know exactly how to define our terms for social, networking, and friends.  I do agree with Dr. Beer, very hard, but after denial comes admittance, that the web is constantly changing and we can’t freeze it and time and write out what it is.  No matter what, this “definition” won’t be up to date.  Research is not moving as fast as we are.   For this reason, I think that we should define SNS as what we want it to be, what WE make out of it.  I believe that if we have to investigate these developments, that active and consistent users should be first in line to explain to us what exactly these things are.  Because, clearly, they understand it the best.