Home » Marketing
Category Archives: Marketing
Don’t I know you from somewhere? Online trolls and other fairytales
Recently there has been a discussion if the owner of one of the social media platforms will be changing its logo. The “iconic” image is to be replaced with something new; undoubtedly this will also change in due course for as long as the medium is still relevant. Whilst people feel strong about brand representation that is something peripheral to what social media represent in recent years. Social media for a long time have been accused of harboring the worst of human interaction, tolerating intolerable actions from hate speech to incitement to violence. Is this however a fair representation of social media?
We build/cultivate and imagine in social media. They are the key to our online identity and in some ways will explain our conduct with others. Some link different media together, so that you can check Facebook to get an idea of who they are, can check their LinkedIn on education and work experience, you can read their tweets/retweets, you can follow their conversations on yammer, you can get updates of their lives on Snapchat, check their Instagram to see their photos and for the more active ones TikTok where communication is encapsulated within small video fragments. If you were to combine these social media together you can get a very good idea about a person without ever knowing them in person. Social media have ushered the era of virtual representation and people becoming clearer of how this representation works. Clearly there are those who thrive in these and others who struggle.
The ones who manage to use social media effectively can develop a personal brand and even become “social influencers”. A person that has influence over others to promote goods and services…to do so they have to build a reputation and social media works towards establishing just that. Connecting different parts of social media works to their advantage as their profile works towards their credibility of being a “real” person. The people who make it become the protagonists assuming the role of a hero, a modern-day prince/princess with a back story that is endearing. Whilst they drip feed their story of adversity with personal details of some private aspects of their lives, they also provide their followers with the commodities that they promote. I lost someone important to me, had a terrible experience at school, faced health problems but look at my stylish hat. These are the cargo trousers I left an abusive relationship in, and my cropped t-shirt is a strong statement to being environmentally
sensitive. Obviously, I deliberately exaggerate the statements here and in fairness no one will be (at least I hope) so deliberate in their product placement. What is very clear is that our social media influencers spend a significant amount of time building content and by devoting more time to that they need the necessary financial support. The top influencers have millions of people following them, a reach that
very few people have ever had before. Never before, a young person offering make-up tips, a reality star or a dancer had so many people interested in their lives. The very top of them have more than 500 million followers and we are close to the point that some of them will be reaching over a billion! What started as a personal (cottage) industry of one topic issue, has evolved into an all-consuming enterprise. The more the followers, the greater the demand for additional information. The more information, the more exposed the influencer becomes. Then marketing follows as the reward. The heroes of social media have to find ways to make an income and endorsing products seems to be the main way to do so.
The kingdom of social media doesn’t only contain heroes; there are also villains in the story. The people whose profile is not personal, doesn’t include any private details and who seem to have as their main focus to attack others. The term troll appeared in the early 90s when online identities seemed to be separate from our social ones. It was expected in a new domain that people will assume roles and whilst some went for the hero of the community others took a different turn. The early trolls under the protection of cyber identities hid their frustrations and brought to the community something we have in the real world, bullying. The evolution of social media that requires a different presence and the rules the internet community tried to deal with them meant that some of the original forms of trolling started disappearing, but were never extinguished. In fact, they became an equally useful commodity, almost equal to the influencers. Our heroes play the part of the product promoter; they look good and provide us with goodwill stories; on occasion when the appeal of the hero wanes, and people try to use social media to mobilise on social issues or promote alternative stories that’s when the trolls come in!
Out of their caves they come, trying to shut down conversations, mislead people and even intimidate people into silencing them.
This brings me to the main point of this blog; originally the internet seemed to be a worldwide phenomenon that was all inclusive and slightly anarchical. People found on the internet a companion, an ally, an adversary. It became a foundation for a virtual ecumenical community. Well, that was until big business moved in and brought in their usual tactics. The cyber world became more like our physical world and the cyber identities were quickly replaced by professional ones. At this point the internet is much more regulated and monitored than ever before. Which begs the question; how come there are so many accusations of misinformation, and intimidation now? How come such a regulated medium allows bullying and intimidation to continue? I am astounded even now to see on social media reactions on social medial about stories that do not simply lack social sensitivity they are intentionally inflammatory to coax reactions and offend people. I am still astounded to see the political alliances of the troll army and their reactions to open conversations. Therefore, it is not surprising that several minority groups have accused social media of doing very little to protect them from attacks and the use of pejorative language that has its place in a history of shame. Maybe because social media provides a fairytale with princesses and trolls, they do not have the space for those who do not promote a marketed lifestyle. Life is surprisingly diverse, and marketing is only one side of it. Ignoring some of the bigger social issues, using
trolls to shut down the conversations our global community needs, will not do. In academia the sign of a good debate lies in the ability to bring in evidence and support all claims with accurate and relevant information. Some of our colleagues are trying to take some of their knowledge outside the classroom into social media; I salute them, as we have been trying to engage as much as we can, but I also worry that the actual model that social media is built upon also at fault. Maybe it needs some rethink; there is no question that we are all equal, but we do not all have the same knowledge.
Share this:
Back to school; who would have thought it could be fun?
A few years ago, probably about three or four, I found myself appointed as some form of school liaison person for criminology. I’m still trying to conjure up a title for my office worthy of consideration as grand poohbah. As I understood my role, the university marketing department would arrange for schools to visit the university or for me to visit schools to promote the university and talk about criminology.
In the beginning, I stumbled around the talks, trying to find my feet and a formula of presentation that worked. As with most things, it’s trial and error and in those earlier days some of it felt like a trial, and there were certainly a few errors (nothing major, just stuff that didn’t work). The presentations became workshops, the ideas morphed from standing up and talking and asking a few questions, with very limited replies, to asking students to think about ideas and concepts and then discussing them, introducing theoretical concepts along the way. These days we try to disentangle scenarios and try to make sense of them, exploring the ideas around definitions of crime, victims and offenders.
There is nothing special about what I do but the response seems magical, there is real engagement and enthusiasm. I can see students thinking, I can see the eyes light up when I touch on topics and question society’s ideas and values. Criminology is a fascinating subject and I want everyone to know that, but most importantly I want young minds to think for themselves and to question the accepted norms. To that extent, criminology is a bit of a side show, the main gig is the notion that university is about stretching minds, seeking and acquiring knowledge and never being satisfied with what is supposedly known. I suppose criminology is the vehicle, but the driver decides how far they go and how fast.
As well as changing my style of presentation, I have also become a little more discerning in choosing what I do. I do not want to turn up to a school simply to tell pupils this is what the course looks like, these are the modules and here are a few examples of the sorts of things we teach at the university. That does nothing to build enthusiasm, it says nothing about our teaching and quite frankly, its boring, both for me and the audience.
Whilst I will turn up to a school to take a session for pupils who have been told that they have a class taken by a visitor, I much prefer those sessions where the pupils have volunteered to attend. Non-compulsory classes such as after school events are filled with students who are there because they have an interest and the enthusiasm shines through.
Whilst recognising marketing have a place in arranging school visits, particularly new ones, I have found that more of my time is taken up revisiting schools at their request. My visits have extended outside of the county into neighbouring counties and even as far as Norfolk. Students can go to university anywhere so why not spread the word about criminology anywhere. And just to prove that students are never too young to learn, primary school visits for a bit of practical fingerprinting have been carried out for a second time. Science day is great fun, although I’m not sure parents or carers are that keen on trying to clean little inky hands (I keep telling them its only supposed to be the fingers), I really must remember not to use indelible ink!
Share this:
Painting by numbers: The problem with HE.
Tillovision, http://www.Tillovision.com
I read a report the other week about concern over the number of 1st degrees that are being achieved within higher education in the UK (Richmond, 2018) and the fact that the volume of such achievements is devaluing university degrees. I juxtapose this with another report that states that 32% of students do not think they get value for money (Neves and Hillman, 2018) and the result is some soul searching about what it is I’m trying to achieve as a lecturer, aside from survival, and what higher education (HE) is about. A conversation with a friend who works in Information Technology muddies the water even more. He’s a high flyer, jetting backwards and forwards to the USA, solving problems, advising on, and implementing major change projects within large corporations and generally making a lot of money along the way. For him a degree is not as important as the ability to ‘think outside the box’, find solutions to problems and show leadership that enables change or fixes. If you have a degree then you ought to be able to do all these things to some extent, experience will then build on it. He lets on that his company will not touch graduates from certain universities, simply because they do not have the requisite skills or abilities, their degrees are effectively meaningless. A sad generalisation but one that is becoming increasingly prominent amongst employers. One other thing that he was quick to point out is that the ‘real world’ is highly competitive and his company are looking for the best potential.
So, what is higher education all about, higher than what? What is the benchmark and what is the end goal? I have always believed that higher education is about taking students beyond what can be read in books or can be followed in manuals. It is about enhancing the understanding of the world in which we operate, either professionally or socially and being able to redesign or reimagine that world. It is about leadership in its many guises, problem solving and the ability to use initiative and autonomy. It is about moving a student from being able to paint by numbers under supervision to a student that can paint free hand, understanding light and colours, understanding how to capture moods or how to be evocative, a student who uses materials that they want to use, and they are not frightened to do so. It stands to reason that not every student can achieve excellence. If the starting point is the ability to paint by numbers, then some will move only slightly beyond this and some will excel, but only a few will warrant a 1st degree. What is clear though is that the students really ought to be able to paint by numbers before they enter HE otherwise they will need to be taught that skill before they can move on. That then is no longer higher education but further education (FE) and more importantly, it sets students up to fail, if they are being measured against HE standards. An alternative to avoid this potential failure requires HE standards to be lowered to those of FE. In which case what is the point of HE?
So why would I be confused about HE? Well, when students are seen as cash cows, each being worth £9250 a year to an institution, being able to paint by numbers becomes a barrier to recruitment in a highly competitive market. Institutions can help students that do not have the requisite skills, but this requires either extra time before joining the HE course, this has funding implications, or a lot of extra work by the student during the HE course, and this means that students with limited academic ability struggle. A need to retain students over the three-year period of a degree, to ensure institutional financial stability or even viability, becomes problematic. Struggling students have a double whammy, they have to catch up to the starting point for each year, whilst also progressing through the year. The choices are stark for HE institutions, progress students by lowering standards or lose them.
HE institutions are measured on the number of good degrees and it makes for good advertising. There is enough literature around to suggest that such unsophisticated quantitative measures are never a good thing. The complexity of higher education, where there is a heavy reliance on students engaging in their studies (there is something to be said about reading for a degree), puts much of the achievement of grades beyond the control of lecturers or even institutions. The resultant solution appears to be the lowering of assessment standards and teaching to assessments. In effect, HE is falling in line with FE and teaching students to paint by numbers. It is easy to see why there is disquiet then about an increase in 1st degrees and more importantly, in a competitive world, why employers are becoming increasingly concerned about the value of a degree. As for value for money for students, for many, it’s a bit like being charged a fortune to race a Maserati round a track for a day but not being able to drive.
Neves, J. and Hillman, N. (2018) Student Academic Experience Survey report 2018 [online] available at https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/student-academic-experience-survey-report-2018 [accessed 20 June 2018]
Richmond, T. (2018) A degree of uncertainty: An investigation into grade inflation in universities. [online] available at, http://www.reform.uk/publication/a-degree-of-uncertainty-an-investigation-into-grade-inflation-in-universities/ [accessed 20 June 2018].
Share this:
Netflix and Study?
Bethany Davies is an Associate Lecturer teaching modules in the first year.
As each year and each term goes by, it brings to light how much more we are all connected through media and also how we use media to socialise and also learn.
Now, watching television, movies and using music to learn is not a new concept, I understand this, but on a personal level, I have found more individuals using television and more specifically, crime documentaries to fuel their interest in criminology and their understanding of elements of the criminal justice system.
I believe firstly, the idea of enjoying, what is termed ‘binge watching’, crime documentaries, an interesting concept. As previously explored on the blog regarding ‘enjoyment’ and ‘fun’ of criminology, the themes in these documentaries are very dark and in most cases, the gorier it is, the more it seems to be enjoyed by some viewers. Each September that rolls around we have the (sometimes dreaded) ‘ice breaker’ session, where we get to know our students and what has made them want to pursue a criminology degree at this University. Within that you will always have some who choose to voice their love of a certain crime TV show. This does not always end at first introductions either, there is often a continuation of comparisons made between that of a serious historical event and that of Netflix documentary (for example) which can often contain more dramatic music and pictures than it does criminological discussion.
The question I would like to present is, do we nourish the idea of using documentaries and crime dramas to keep the interest of those who wish to pursue criminology as a field of learning, or would doing so be disingenuous to what criminology is and neglect the love for reading and debates in criminology? I do not necessarily feel this is a question we have to worry about tremendously as I feel those who seek to study criminology purely based on their love for crime documentaries will either soon realise that there is so much of criminology that does not fit those ideas and either love it or abandon it at that point.
But in years to come these questions may be more significant than they are currently. Especially if used as a tool in universities to attract more students into a certain discipline. There are such large elements of criminology that I feel have to be explored with literature or within a seminar setting with questions and debates, and it can be easy for institutions to say that these elements will always be fundamental to a criminology degree for years to come. However, if other institutions start to use more and more media and visual aids to demonstrate a theory or issue of crime in the future, or what I suspect more as a marketing campaign to attract students, will we conform? There are some articles (from questionable sources) that some institutions are using Snapchat and social media takeovers to help attract students to certain courses, most of which I have read about have been media based, granted. But let’s hope all this drivelling nonsense is just my brain after a long bank holiday weekend and not a possibly looming prospect of the future of criminology, right?
Thoughts from the criminology team 