The Karl Stefanovic Phenomenon – why clickbait doesn’t rate

In TV, if no one is taking about you, you’re dead.
Clarkey For Kids Sports Lunch
This Herald story on Karl Stefanovic boosting Today Show ratings is a beat-up. Sunrise have Today up against the wall and they’re tickling them till it hurts. But the continuing popularity of Karl in the online sphere – rather than on TV – proves that Karl is cool in a way that defines many public personalities these days; we won’t switch them on but we will click on them, again and again.
Karl is the televisual equivalent of that friend or colleague who is fun tower firstly but too tiring to hang out with. He’s worth a chat or a cheap laugh, but never a full conversation.
Does Karl care? I doubt it. (Smug!) While he goes about his work, the internet has transformed Karl into a sound-bite factory, gif magic, and perfect YouTube fodder. Even his unassuming, regular Aussie bloke tweets are shareable gold.
That said, he’s a twitstorm in a teacup.
Any sordid joke or witty remark is only hot property for a few short days. The Herald and Telegraph know this and hence, they will fashion a homepage story around his madcap behaviour at any opportunity. The traffic flows into the website, amplified largely by social sharing. And if there is a chance to rehash a popular Karl moment from a year ago, they’ll give it another run. Because while they peak early, these stories can live on forever.
But does the media’s enthusiasm for Karl’s bottled boganism contribute to TV ratings? No. It’s a trivial, nauseating cycle of funny-moments-becoming-YouTube-hits-becoming-news-stories that has been going on for years without the Today Show receiving any significant bump. Even the latest Herald story with Karl in the headline is mostly about how Sunrise romped home with their best lead in years. His name is there because that’s what people click on. Same goes for sex, p0rn and iPhone.
Today has not enjoyed anything like the bump in popularity you might expect with the global enthusiasm for Karl’s latest wear-a-suit-for-a-year stunt. The host’s joke with the Dalai Lama achieved even greater notoriety and has been  more than two million times on YouTube.
In fact, Karl’s top ten most popular clips on YouTube have been viewed more than 15 million times. His Twitter figures are, by most comparisons, extraordinary: 250,000+ followers, 2500 tweets. Scores of retweets follow each mundane observation. (See examples below)
I have set up many TV personalities on Twitter and I’ve told each one of them to just be themselves. For Karl, being himself – his plain speaking, jocular, slightly inappropriate self –  resonates with so many people, you’d be forgiven for thinking Karl was a seriously popular star with a compelling or hilarious feed. Decide for yourself.
People seem to love him regardless.
A friend of mine pointed out that it was not always this way. A few years back, Karl was widely loathed and even worse, ignored. But since the host made headlines around the world for being drunk on-air and trying to crack a dad joke with a Tibetan Buddhist leader, Aussies have embraced Karl as one of their own and will now happily rave about his latest larrikin exploit.
I can’t stand the man, yet even I have pulled out my phone at dinner parties to show friends the latest reason I can’t stand him.
He’s a middle-aged man of the age, a mate who’ll hold your longneck while you take a wizz, Australia’s Kramer – a loathsome, offensive brute, yet I can’t look away.
It’s clear that the only winner in Karl’s situation is Karl’s personal profile. His appeal is in unexpected moments that shock or surprise viewers for a 30-second clip. Sure, the Today Show appears in every clip and gif but as the moments are unscripted, Channel 9 can’t capitalise or fabricate this ineffable brilliance. If I was them I’d be seriously frustrated. But the potential is there and that’s why other TV bosses should pay attention to this phenomenon.
The idea that ratings are the only thing that matters will soon fade . Television audiences will continue to shrink and TV shows that resonate online will
a) attract the next generation of viewers and,
b) get the advertising dollars that are will move online when we are all streaming shows.
Essentially, views will count for more than viewers.
Some networks are already acting on this. Certain shows are being driven to produce more shareable content and are tailoring segments to online audiences – think John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight, Jimmy Fallon, or The Voice.
Personalities will still need to be social-savvy, but most are nowadays, and it’s the producers that need to think differently; How will this story translate to online viewers who can scroll through it in ten seconds? Will it work for a commuter watching live on a smartphone? Would I share this segment? How are we using social networks to draw viewers into the next episode?
I didn’t see your cliffhanger last week, sorry. I don’t know who is in the final four. And I’m not even seeing your teases in the cricket or in the 6pm news. I’m busy watching reruns of Karl embarrassing himself in 2010.
Advertisements

5 Predictions for social TV in 2014

Social TV is going to be more than a buzzword in 2014, it will become the essential element many TV viewers need to complete their viewing experience.

Only now do broadcasters have access to the tools that will reach many of the expectations their audiences have built up since Twitter and Facebook began encouraging levels of engagement the networks themselves could not deliver.

Working on the cusp of this is what makes me want to get up in the morning.

Here are 5 ways I see the landscape changing in the next 12 months:

1. Deeper program integration.
As broadcasters become more familiar with social media trends and terminology, expect comments and other content appearing in TV shows to be more useful, seamlessly integrated, less visually intrusive, and, with improved moderation, more relevant (ie. intelligent). The era of seeing Sally from Blacktown’s tweet on screen is nearing an end.

tweets qanda

2. Platform tools
The broadcasters won’t be the only ones evolving. Twitter is sharpening it’s live TV tools –  from targeted ads to trends to ratings. Twitter and Facebook are racing each other to the prize of realtime TV co-dependence. Twitter has an early lead and is eager to have people link the hashtag with the little blue bird. But if Facebook figures out filtering at scale, bringing you useful comments from people you know of or people nearby – all grouped around a hashtag – then the number of people who have never used twitter but have a Facebook account will suddenly understand what TV conversations are all about.

3. New apps and mergers
TV apps that aggregate social content and aim to complement your viewing continue to emerge. Apps can already control getglueyour TV, set your PVR to record and rewind. Zeebox continues to add features and may be snapped up in the next year having made good ground, especially in the UK. In January, Dijit acquired Miso, then  i.TV purchased GetGlue in November, bringing greater legitimacy to the entire category of apps. Cable TV and free-to-air operators will keep developing their own apps – hopefully joining forces where possible so viewers don’t require a new app for every on-demand service. Streaming apps e.g. Netflix, could be the big ball-buster for networks, especially if deals are drawn up directly with cable networks and production companies.

4. Increasingly social newsrooms
As more news desks employ social media editors, engagement experts and audience leads, the last remaining barriers to viewers having a role to play in realtime news; access and verification; will disappear. Some journalists still see this as a threat. The best journos have already embraced it. Expect to see particular users given elevated status to report news. As the lines between on-air and online have already blurred for consumers (think streaming news, tweeted video snippets, shared gifs of realtime sporting moments) media conglomerates will continue snapping up video content tools and agencies to complement their editorial teams. Likewise, web teams will be further blended with news producers so stories and contributed content can be shared ay direction efficiently.
The future - as per Fox News.

5. Big data to smash it all out of the park
In 2013, Twitter bought Bluefin Labs and Apple purchased Topsy. Each acquisition is aimed at providing realtime insights to the owner and surfacing the most relevant content to the consumer. Either way, TV viewers win – there’ll be less guesswork by producers and more accurate coverage, commentary and graphics. Transparency will also rise as the real sentiment of viewers can now be shown in reality shows and during political debates.

TV and sports are widely regarded as the two most popular topics on social media, and with that in mind, Facebook has just got its hands on SportStream. The numbers around much of the success of social networks have themselves been furry so it’s encouraging to see everyone looking to sure up their own turf with hard data. Data will convince the bean counters of a business case for integrating social, while also bringing more useful graphics to the screen for viewers and realtime stats for those using devices. Because no one loves stats during live events more than a true sports fan. Now imagine if these were personalised, changeable and updating live.

For social TV, the future is bright – because the science is only now becoming clear.

 

This article first appeared on TV Revolution

Basics of Twitter

Twitter, when used effectively, is an extremely quick way to find and share information. The nightly TV news – God bless them – can’t stop reporting what’s happening in Twitterland, because more often than not, it’s where things happen, or happen first.

Yet here we are a few years into the revolution and I continue to find people who want to understand Twitter, some even want to be part of it, but they haven’t joined up. From what I can tell, these happy but misguided people fall into three categories; sceptical or ignorant or both.

So, here is my concise contribution to resolving that.

(I won’t spend any time here going into why or what you would tweet. I believe that once people have spent any time using Twitter, these questions appear as silly as the idea we would all sign up just to tweet what we’re eating.)
————-

When getting started on Twitter, there are three important things to know.

20130123-085302.jpg

@usernames
Your username is your nickname within Twitter. Everyone can see it, and, like your profile picture, it helps define your Twitter identity.

To send a tweet to someone in particular, put their @username at the start of the tweet.

When you ‘mention’ someone this way, this appears on their Twitter page – or their ‘timeline’ – but not on the timeline of anybody else. (The exception to this is if someone is following both of you.)

It means that if you and I have a conversation, as if we were using text messages, most people won’t need to read our stream of comments, and would never come across it, unless they went looking for it. Available but not entirely public.

So, don’t be afraid to have a conversation or send people tweets, as these are generally unseen by your followers.

Twitter also offers the option of sending messages visible to everybody. So if you have something of interest to say, you don’t need to put anybody’s @username at the start of your tweet. Just gi ahead and broadcast.

20130122-084548.jpg

Direct Messages
The other way to tweet is direct messaging. This is a private message sent via Twitter between two people following each other. It is the only way to keep tweets private. While you can’t prevent the recipient of your direct message from sharing it more widely, this rarely happens. For me, this is the main way Twitter is replacing email. But more on that another time.

Retweets
‘RTs’ are the main way people re-share content. A retweet has less gravitas than a forwarded email. It’s best to imagine an RT as a forwarded email sent with a subject line FYI (For Your Information). That said, choose careful what you retweet to avoid it becoming spammy. Some of Australia’s most prolific tweeters retweet up to fifty tweets per day. Because I could, I tweeted them to let them know they were overdoing it. Sure, they ignored me, but I’d got it off my chest.(Don’t actually know if they read my whingey tweet. But still.)

The major concern people have with retweets is the fear that you are endorsing whatever is in the original tweet. This, to me, is a moot point for individuals but a serious issue for brands.

As a person, I can post a photo of graffiti without anyone suspecting I had painted it. Some who see my tweet may think I like the graffiti. Others who know me better will realise it’s just me highlighting how our city is going to rack and ruin. I don’t particularly mind either way but it’s not the best way to tell people what you think is appropriate or funny. It IS a great way to show people something you think others need to see.

For brands, the danger of being seen to condone various points of view must be taken much more seriously. That’s one reason it is safer to retweet with context.

20130122-084555.jpg

Retweets with Added Value
I believe re-tweets are much more valuable if you take a moment to add a comment, a thought or some context to the content of your re-tweet. Where possible, I include a salient fact I gained from the article, or the statistic that surprised me most. Sometimes I even grab a quote that summarises the main thrust of the article.

Sure, it’s not as quick as hitting re-tweet, but it does help explain to people why you’re sharing what you’re sharing, and solves the problem of whether a re-tweet constitutes endorsement.

Now, go get tweeting, and tweet me your complaints or questions. I promise to read them. I may even retweet them.

Filtering, favourites, lists and real clout on social media

Filtering

Social networks need filtering. If this issue is not sorted soon, places like Twitter, Facebook and Pinterest could eventually become ghost-towns. (It could happen. Do you really think you’ll be posting this often in the same places in five or ten years?)

Imagine if 80% of posts in your feed were the gold you want to respond to, the ones you’ll laugh at, the posts you actually want to read. Of course, we still need at least 20% to be slightly irrelevant so distract/potentially inspire us.

That’s the well-filtered world we could be living in now, if we could just figure out who to follow, who to prioritise and how to manage it all.

Currently, networks like Facebook present us with more options than a food court.

Friends, Photos, Events, Apps, Lists, Subscriptions, Groups, Pages and soon Timeline Advertisements… It’s an untameable beast.

We require simple, effective filtering to
lessen the burden of just maintaining what was once so enjoyable to engage with.

Clout

To this end, the idea of measuring clout – to show who are the most influential people on a social network – could be endlessly useful.

I’ve seen many stories about why Klout.com is feted as a measure of social capital. And it does seem a vaguely accurate marker – however easily manipulated.

But I have read other claims it’s based on a misnomer. After all, say the critics, “how do you define influence?”

Here’s how… Lists. Twitter Lists.

Lists

Do you add anyone to your Twitter lists who you don’t respect? It takes longer than to follow someone, and you only look at it for a specific purpose, not while window-shopping on your general twitter feed.

I am on about 60 people’s lists, because I have little influence. (It’s ok. I don’t feel bad.)

Barack Obama is listed 170,271 times. And rightly so.

Secondary to how many times you are listed, is who has you listed. Do they have many followers? Are they listed many times? This could also form a way for Twitter to select top posts. Currently, that algorithm seems hooked on a user’s number of retweets and follower numbers.

Mashable says that there’s a need to quantify someone’s ‘reach, relevance and resonance’ to measure their social influence accurately. (Read more of this dubious claim.) However, influence is dependent on subjective reasons too, like likeability – for example, Barack Obama is of much less influence to you if you are a Republican, or if you live in Iceland.

Favourites

Just a quick note on this much ignored feature of Twitter. I love them as a bookmark, as something to retweet or reply to later… They have many uses. But… they’re UNPROTECTED.

I can look at your favourites, you can look at mine. This astounds me. Can you see my browser bookmarks? No. Yet, without even logging into Twitter , I can see that;

  • Demi Moore has added to her favourites a string of tweets about cheating and moving on from mistakes
  • TV Newsreader Pete Overton likes to add a favourite star to compliments of himself (admittedly, something many of us probably do).
  • PM Julia Gillard used to save criticisms of her staff
  • Singer Rihanna favourites 140-character profane mantras (to turn into songs?)
  • Broadcaster Mark Colvin (@Colvinius) stars what are probably research for future stories
  • Model and TV personality Sarah Murdoch has two favourites – and one is just creepy.
  • ABC Managing Director Mark Scott saves stories related to the changing face of journalism
  • Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has saved just one tweet to his favourites – and it is one of his own. “@ozleaks Didn’t see the programme but, yes, humans have evolved”

That awkward moment when Social Media appears on TV

If the addition of social media to a broadcast is not intended as a distraction to the main game, why is that so often the outcome?

This is something I have wondered as I look at Australia’s attempts and those by networks around the world.

I thought it was self-evident that viewer opinions, when integrated into a television programme, are there to enhance the primary content. But perhaps the pendulum has already swung too far.

Why is it that many shows that have tried out social media on-air are not using innovative techniques, not conjuring up their own clever use adaption of this new community, but instead throw up some clunky graphics or even use the frustrating ‘stop/read a tweet/continue with show’ method.

Exactly who benefits from that?

Poor implementation risks offending both sides. It shows those on social networks that you don’t understand how the stream flows relentlessly on, while those who’ve never signed up for Facebook or Twitter are peeved that their show has new awkward, trendy interruptions.

Good implementation can keep viewers hooked and boost ratings – The Voice in the US is seeing a great response from their use hosts and judges live-tweeting and responding personally to viewers.

One reason TV shows should and are trying to bring social media into the foreground is fear. It’s the fear of any switched on executive producer that the social media stream will become more entertaining than the show itself. People will watch their second screen (mobile devices) more than their first (TV).

Certainly, there’s no better influence for you to switch channels than if all your friends and those you follow are tweeting about #TheVoice.

Hence, broadcasters all over the world are battling with how to bring the social stream into the live TV event. They need to show viewers they are listening to their views, but some integrations of Twitter, especially, are wearing very thin.

I like the UFC‘s approach – use social media to build up hype for the event a week out. Have your main talent interacting with viewers on various platforms throughout the day and then following the event. They understand that owning the conversation is more about taking people in behind the wall of the TV screen than it is the chance to display a highlight reel of the sharpest or fastest tweeters.

Sadly, I think Australia’s one-time leader in this area is now dragging the chain.

QandA is making a mockery of what has become known as Social TV. The show, which can still command large audiences, has long held the torch for social media integration in our country.

Several programs still limit their social network integration to a back-announce of their hashtag as the show ends. (Bit late guys!)

(Lateline is the main offender there, but, I should say, I like the show’s latest idea to give a political or topical personality the reigns as ‘Guest Tweeter’. If you’re going to tell people to “join the conversation”, it makes sense to lead it. This limits carping and provides a loose thread people can join if they wish. If not, your hashtag is just an invitation for everyone to ‘Shout! Now!’)

But back to our beloved QandA.

Each week, an increasingly silly list of tweets are flipped up on the screen.

These days, it’s hard to spot any comment that adds to the discussion. Intelligent questions? Fact-checking? It’s more a procession of punch-lines that would never be appropriate to be read out loud on the show.

It’s more a ticker of sniping, witty retorts and clever word plays that often denigrate a guest. Cardinal Pell was a good example. As was John Howard…

It’s a technique that’s not showing the best side of Twitter, nor is it helping boost engagement for the audience watching at home.

Viewers, as a result, must now tolerate these tweets interrupting the actual debate, on top of Tony Jones’s regular interruptions of panelists (something he’s long been known for). Who benefits? No one but the wise guys who – no doubt – congratulate each other on their televised tweets the next day over the ad agency water cooler.

Imagine the real-life equivalent; You’re in a pub trying to enjoy the footy but you can’t hear the commentary because all the biggest smart-arses in the room have lined up to whisper their witty interjections in your ear.

Tweets that flash up and then disappear only adds to the distraction. (It’s very hard not to look at them. I tried hard and only skipped two. Tell me how you go.)

How about a ticker that continues scrolling in the bottom third – that way I can dip-in if I wish?

But how about some more creative uses of social media?

Get your hosts to tweet LIVE on air and ask for responses.

Give characters in a drama series real-life accounts, updated mid-week, to add to the storyline – and intrigue. (Packed to the Rafters recently started a character blogging – an interesting move.)

Contests can be easily managed via social media. Tweet your trivia answer to this hashtag… Find and LIKE our hidden Facebook page for the next clue… Start a Pinterest and name a Board after our show (Microsoft and Harrods have each tried something similar)

Philosopher Alain de Botton said that the main challenge of smartphones is for us to be more interesting than they are – to stop people’s eyes drifting back to their tiny screen.

The same goes for TV.

There are many ways we can take this Australia. Let’s not leave it as it is. Please?

Pretty soon, my second screen will be much more interesting than my first.

Why I don’t bother with Tweetdeck

I cannot fathom what is going on at Twitter.

Millions of dollars flowing their way, adulation, sponsorships and the chance to recruit masters of user interface design and HTML5.

Yet the app they bought, Tweetdeck, is floundering terribly.

In my job, I train TV staff and recommend to a range of journalists and TV producers on what apps they hsould use for navigating Twitter.

My first comments are;

1) Don’t use the Twitter website if you can help it.

2) Don’t download the latest version of Tweetdeck.

Yet, as a social media manager, I have no great option with which to use Twitter on a PC desktop machine.

Yes, Hootsuite.com is getting ne by – and saves anyone who can’t install an app on their work PC – but my point is that Twitter, by purchasing Tweetdeck, was supposed to improve it into the killer app it should be. Instead it is has faltered at nearly every turn.

Oh how I despise it. Let me count the ways…

1) I can’t trust the schedule function, It regularly posts tweets immediately, not at prescribed times.

2) I cannot add someone to a list (this was available in a previous version)

3) I must add an entire column/feed of an user in order to access an individual tweet’s details.

4) The black background is not everyone’s cup of tea. It was cool for a while but now the contrast makes me squint and my OHS advisor agrees. So there.

5) The Chrome version fails to link to it’s own extension in the left-click option ‘Share this via Tweetdeck’

6) I cannot remove some accounts I no longer use. They reappear every time I reopen the app in some kind of mystical syncing debacle I am not privy to.

7) I cannot choose from which account I am favouriting a tweet or following a user.

8) The iPhone app has always been intolerable and the latest iteration does little to help it comete with stable, speedy options like @tweetbot

9) All these people agree with me

10) No threaded conversations? Or, only when it wants to show them. Pfft

11) I’m given a set number of columns or to get to the adjacent column I have to switch to a new three? No.

12) Adobe Air. It’s a daft idea to think I should keep approving updates to a secondary program I don’t really need. And its adds substantially to Tweetdeck’s reputation as a ‘memory hog’ slowing down your whole computer.

But like in the Bible and in all good Harry Potter books, there is hope….

You can download the old Tweetdeck!

Or, as I mentioned, try Hootsuite, a web-based version that actually does a lot more – perhaps too much – and it does it efficiently. There are many reasons to switch, but as I tell staff who are new to Twitter, don’t even try Tweetdeck out to begin with.

Is it salvageable? Of course. If they stripped it back to what it could do well to begin with – multiple feeds that are searchable – and add on features that other top apps now include, Tweetdeck could bounce back.

Is this likely? I don’t think so. Have you seen the latest range of changes Twitter brought to its own website? Connect/Discover/Whatever…

Gripes of wrath – My first look at The Global Mail

I was up late so I switched on the new Australian bastion of Independent Journalism, The Global Mail (TGM).

The website only went live last night but after twenty minutes or so I felt I had a good enough grasp of their plans to share my thoughts. And all my thoughts were about sharing. Because that’s what we do.

During the next day, today, I have seen some nastier reviews of TGM. This kind of spontaneous chatter, the fleeting engagement that social media elevates into conversation is still worthwhile and I am confident the editors won’t see the negatives as carping but as people wanting to be proud of a standout moment in our media culture, to make a good thing great.

My email to the editor went something like this.

Hello,
Thanks for launching your new venture – it has already kept me up past midnight so that can’t be a bad thing.

Having read a few articles, each of which I appreciated, I found myself wanting more, more links to topics raised, more options for looking at the source material and a chance to delve further into the life of the author. Sadly, none of these options are present on your site. My hopes were that TGM would bring a fresh new look to independent storytelling – which it does, I am enjoying the interface and typesetting – but also that it would nail the sharing mentality that is now spearheaded by social media. As for me and my generation, this is how we consume media; it is second nature to ping our friends as we read a story, to tweet a thought, to grab a quote (preferably out of context) or to drag a photo to show our followers.

I hope that your site is already aware of these trends and plans to roll out such solutions in coming weeks. It is, after all, our first night together and I realise it’s unfair expecting everything to be just right.

So, how about it? How about a Google+ button, hyperlinked issues within stories, article tags and photos that link to more photos from that event or photographer. Right now TGM feels to me like a broadsheet copied onto a website.

I look forward to seeing where else you take it – and where I can take it.

Cheers, Luke.

TVs are the new old librarians [updated]

20110928-151559.jpg

My recent experience of buying a new TV should have delivered me immense satisfaction and loads of testosterone as I made the biggest decision a married male can make on his own.

But somehow, my purchase of a Smart TV” left me feeling much dumber for it.

I work in TV but live most of my life online so in my humble opinion, my new “connected TV” should allow me to do both;

I want to tweet while I watch a show. I want to read my Facebook but keep streaming the news. I want also want to be able to browse the web using a keyboard and trackpad and it doesn’t seem ridiculous to me to expect a TV to be easily able to stream videos on my much smaller-screened Macbook.

But no. For the ten years since plasma TVs came out – and I have been biding my time – the best TV makers have developed is a pretty pixelated digital picture that is thinner and uses less energy.

3D-enabled or not? 50hz or 100hz? Internet-ready? Wifi-connected? What? Why??

Why are we way back here, deciding on small variations of nothingness when even the most sophisticated TV will still only deliver me a dodgy web browsing experience.

(Massive icons, a keypad on the remote with arrows to move the cursor around like a first generation Blackberry. And on most, you enter a URL using numbers like your first NOKIA in 1995!)

After visiting two or three stores, it became obvious that the coolest, $5000 LED-LCD TV won’t yet let me flick between websites, track tweets while I watch a show in the other part of the screen, post on Facebook while I continue watching my favourite show… you know, do what my notebook computer does.

When I went to university and completed my Applied Science in Information Studies, I knew the internet was going to change everything. But that’s all I knew. And the lecturers, who were clouded by years of teaching how information sharing worked the old way,had only just begun accepting essays via email.

TVs are now the librarians of old. The rusty Citroens choking up the info highway, delivering info as they always did and resisting new developments that threaten its mainstay.

It’s no wonder nearly 50% of teens now spend more time on their computers than watching TV. [citation coming]

Looks too me like televisions are an overheated area of glitzy marketing with pretty minimal delivery. There’s lots of jargon, stickers and selling points but I am getting a TV which does little more than the mournful, cumbersome CRT I now have sitting on my living room floor like an orphaned elephant. Yes, a white elephant.

Lucky for me, one clever thing my TV can do is turn itself off if it detects no movement in the room for thirty minutes.

And so far, to Sony’s credit, this has only occurred twice during my favourite show.

——-/——-
UPDATE!!

Unbelievable.
Now that I have finally received the WIFI dongle (which had to be transferred from another store) I find that the Sony WIDGETS work on my TV model and one is for Twitter!

This means I CAN have a twitter feed in the right of screen as the show – form any source – plays out on the left of screen. Joy of joys. And my apologies to Sony.

The interface is limited but hey, it’s all a step toward real social TV. Using Sony’s rather good iPhone app ‘Media Remote’ you can type and navigate the screen as good as one might hope.

Filtering tweets by business – a nearly great idea

20110925-203720.jpg

Just noticed a company that does good work aggregating Tweets around localities has also begun showing the highest trending clubs/bars/cafes.

If they extend the archive and depth of related tweets, this could make for great peer-reviewed dining out.

Imagine a menu-log with up-to-date tweets or Travel Advisor built on honest opinions freely shared by everyday humans.

But, as this picture shows, businesses such as The Winery might develop a distaste of such an idea. All the more reason for it to work.

(And though Travel Advisor reviewers have faced law suits for poor reviews, who is going go to sue a tweep? Surely no one would ever!? But here are some tips to avoiding it…)

 

 

%d bloggers like this: