From sea to shining sea

If there is anything I have learned in the past 15 years since coming to America in 2000, it is that America is beautiful. Today, I will be dipping my toes in the Atlantic Ocean as I spend Fourth of July with my parents in Jacksonville, FL this year. I can't help but think that exactly one year ago, my breath was being taken away, in much the same way, by the Pacific Ocean at #CampEmeraldBay, and for everything in between, I am endlessly grateful.

Looking out into the Atlantic Ocean (Atlantic Beach, Jacksonville, FL)

America is great because it is so vast. It's not only vast in landscapes, but also vast in ideas and in diversity of its People.

Each city that I have had the chance to visit in the past year has been so absolutely different, each so absolutely gorgeous, energizing and vibrant in their own ways. Yet, what is more noticeable is all the things that weave us together as Americans and the common story, aspirations, hope and Dream we all share, whether born here or not.

America is not perfect and we have made mistakes, many of them. In fact, the manner in which we became such a vast Nation is not one of our best moments. But, as Emily Mortimer (MacKenzie McHale) says in Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom,"America is the only country on the planet, that since its birth, has said over and over and over that we can do better. It's part of our DNA."

People around the world look to America when they need a leader, a Nation that has a moral compass to stand up for the fundamental rights of all People and a Nation that recognizes the values it was created for. There's a lot to easily be cynical about, but it is the moments where America acts uniquely that we so often forget about how great our home is. From creating some of the brightest minds and promoting creativity to taking action on some of the world's hardest problems, America still remains both a force for good and a beacon of hope for much of the world. We are not in that position because we are perfect—we are in that position because we can so honestly, openly and vigorously have the tough conversations publicly, while still remaining one Nation.

A lot of people compare America with China nowadays. They talk about the Chinese government working so efficiently, a comparison that scares me. Efficiency is not what we want and was not what our Founding Fathers intended for. That's also not how democracy works, even if the world is moving faster now. For all the gridlock we have, we should also keep in mind that this Nation was built on the notion that there is no one right way and that all ideas should be put on the table, to be considered and discussed by the American People.

So, this Fourth of July, while you celebrate with friends, good food and amazing fireworks, also take a moment to reflect on all the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans and all the responsibilities so many of us, so often, shy away from. Reflect on how different we each are as Americans, but also everything that makes us One Nation. Reflect on all the mistakes we have made, how We the People can all work together to make this Nation better and all that we can be proud of and celebrate.

And so...

I pledge allegiance, to the Flag, of the United States of America,
And to the Republic, for which it stands.
One Nation, under God.
Indivisible. With Liberty and Justice for all.

Cross-posted on Google+: https://plus.google.com/+iantang/posts/e8qxXWySz7z

First year

This week marks the first year of living with +Google Glass—not one year, but the first. As in there is more to come. 

I still remember seeing the +UPS truck downstairs, setting Glass up for the first time and more. The journey since then has been so exciting, surprising and constantly refreshing—we are in uncharted territory and everything is so new.

And, genuinely, for me, Glass continues to bring magic to life. It has positively changed how I interact with technology, whether it is getting directions, searching +Google, sending a message or just taking a photo without missing the moments that matter. This weekend in New York, as with many other situations, I really felt like I got to push technology out of the way most of the time and explore, while also relive the moments exactly as they happened afterwards.

Glass invigorates me with the same energy I felt when arriving in New York for the first time: ever-changing, nonstop innovation and undying optimism and belief in core ideals.

Photo credit: +Deepa S 

Of course there are a whole list of improvements Glass can undergo. Of course there are situations where Glass is not suitable and where I don't wear Glass, just like regular glasses or smartphones. But, I think most people forget that this is a highly beta project and still a Google moonshot, just like +Project Loon, +Google Fiber, and the +Google Self-Driving Car Project.

Personally, I don't think Glass will ever be a failure for Google however this goes—it will either continue to evolve or be a valuable insight into wearable technology for the future. So, while the haters continue to hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, we, the players, are gonna play, play, play, play, play, as +Taylor Swift eloquently puts it.

The media may write whatever they wish about Google like how +Google+ is going to die, or Glass or even Taylor Swift, but I'd rather spend my energy supporting risk-takers, the future, the ideals they stand for and a better life. All these risk-taking brands and people I support are far more than what the media portrays—just look at Taylor's actual album sales versus what experts projected. Plus, the broad reception I receive from the public about Glass just does not align with how the media usually characterizes it as.

Sharing the magic with various people and seeing their faces light up with joy as they learn about what is true continues to give me goosebumps.

But, most of all though, the past year has seen a whole bunch of passionate, smart people come into my life, online, in real-life or both: the community of Guides and Explorers shaping this whole project, including +Chara Kelley, +steph lake, +Virginia Poltrack, +Jeff Bond, +Spencer Kleyweg, +Morgan Tuohy, +Jeffrey Young, +Ana Medina, +Christopher Rios, +Brian Kelley, +Mason Rothman and +Eddie Daniels, just to name a very few.

Here's to what we accomplish together next, +Google Glass and #GlassFamily.

My thoughts on why Spotify is flawed

+PCMag states it best: "Good music that people enjoy has to be worth something."

That's the precise problem with Spotify—it is probably the only music product on the market today that offers an on-demand music library, free-of-charge.

Many have compared Spotify to other streaming services, such as +Pandora. The problem is, by definition, Pandora and Internet radio, designed specifically for discovery, and subscription services, like +Beats Music and +Google Play Music All Access, are based on completely different models. Internet radio provides limited ability to play the exact track on-demand and subscription services are obviously paid services. 

Spotify has created users who feel entitled to virtually owning and playing specific music at no charge. For example, I have seen comments, from Spotify users, asserting that Taylor Swift should have her music on Spotify because not everyone has the financial ability to purchase it or how costly it would be to pay for music. I'm not sure when we evolved into a society where content, and other peoples' works, that took valuable skills and insane amounts of time to create, were taken for granted. Or, as +The Telegraph puts it, "we now have an extremely entitled culture, where any kind of art is seen as a communal property." Certainly, not everyone can afford books, movies and even Android devices or iPhones, all various types of content and products that hard-working people create and turn into reality.

In an interview with Yahoo!, Taylor summed up how she felt when she tried releasing new music (Shake It Off) directly on Spotify: 

I felt like I was saying to my fans, "If you create music someday, if you create a painting someday, someone can just walk into a museum, take it off the wall, rip off a corner off it, and it's theirs now and they don't have to pay for it." I didn't like the perception that it was putting forth (Taylor Swift).  

Taylor Swift performing in Arizona during her RED World Tour.

I have always believed that the Internet should be free and open and that we should create better marketplaces and channels for content to be accessed and distributed at reasonable prices. This should be decided by the equilibrium of supply and demand. This is our best bet against piracy, not distributing content for free or keeping it in exclusive, far-to-reach corners of the web.

A lot of people, especially those that I have had a pleasure of discussing this issue with, believe Taylor is being greedy or selfish. I disagree. She is continually adding to the next generation of the music industry and trying to solve some of the biggest problems it has ever faced. She is standing up for superstars and indie-bands alike, because her position allows her to. It's why various smaller artists have tweeted her, praising her stance against Spotify, calling it "a streaming service that doesn't pay."

Payment in exchange for creative and valuable content is simply so that those same content creators creating all the things we enjoy can continue to innovate and bring us even more quality content. It's the same reason why big-name artists, including Adele, +Coldplay, +Beyoncé and others, have followed the approach of releasing Spotify versions months after their music actually comes out. Unfortunately, smaller artists don't have the ability because they first need their music just out there however and wherever it can be—it's time they should start making money too.

In fact, according to PCMag, 

Swift wanted to keep her latest album on delayed-release, or at least only available to Spotify's premium subscribers, which Spotify didn't want; hence the impasse.

I am not saying that streaming services aren't the answer. But, I do not think Spotify and its flawed model, in particular, are the answers we are looking for, both as consumers and content creators—we will get lower quality of content and content creators cannot make a living. The music industry is ripe for innovation, but Spotify does not have the solution.

At the end of the day, Taylor Swift ignited an important conversation about how much we value content and everyone should be happy about that.

Additional Articles

PCMag: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2471728,00.asp

"Taylor Swift vs. Spotify: Why Music Should Not Be Free"

+Yahoo!: https://music.yahoo.com/news/taylor-swift-shuns-grand-experiment-streaming-music-225600118-rolling-stone.html

"Taylor Swift Shuns 'Grand Experiment' of Streaming Music"

+The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11212861/Taylor-Swift-left-Spotify-because-we-stopped-valuing-art.html

"Taylor Swift left Spotify because we stopped valuing art"

I LOVE HK: a spark for democracy

I LOVE HK.

My beautiful birthplace, Summer 2013.

There's a quote most often attributed to Thomas Jefferson that says: "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When governments fear the people, there is liberty."

And then, in "The Hunger Games," there's a quote that reads: "Every revolution begins with a spark."

I genuinely believe in these two profound quotes. And that's why today, my thoughts are with the brave peoples of Hong Kong, from students to working professionals, standing up for something they believe in and fighting for a universal right, namely universal suffrage, that we, as humans, should each have. I stand with you. I feel your pain and suffering. 

I say peoples, and not people, of Hong Kong because it's a diverse city comprised of so many backgrounds, beliefs, national and ethnic origins, race, religions and sexualities, all of whom are united to defend the freedom that Hong Kong has enjoyed over the past decades. It is precisely this freedom that has allowed Hong Kong to become a cultural, economic and political beacon in the East to so many.

Hong Kong today, September 28, 2014. Courtesy: CNN.

Governments like China cannot endure, at least not in their current form, especially in this new digital age. And a simple spark can lead to something revolutionary. The way governments work is a new game for this next century—people can demand their voices to be heard, more so than ever before and I believe what is right will prevail. Hong Kong has been so prosperous because of the equality and freedom—freedom of assembly, of expression, of information, of the press, of speech—that has existed over the past several decades. I don't think there is anywhere as prepared as Hong Kong to remind us that freedom is truly not free and must be defended daily.

My heart hurts and I am saddened seeing the devastating photos come out of Hong Kong, photos of streets that I have walked on and admired. But it also makes me proud of the citizens of Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, just like as in American cities, these shouldn't be seen as embarrassments, but rather, a functioning civil society able to hold thoughtful conversations and stand up for what they believe in. The government is the entity that should be embarrassed for their oppressive response and for governing without the consent of the governed.

That's why I also think, for me, I find stories like "The Hunger Games" so powerful, because people are living out these scenarios each and every day. It's quite inspirational if you think about it.

Night lights in Hong Kong, Summer 2013.

"Echoing Tiananmen, 17-year-old Hong Kong student prepares for democracy battle"

CNN and CNN International
—"Fear has been deeply rooted in our genes through the past 65 years. The majority of China's 1.3 billion people are not true citizens; most of the people are simply submissive."
—"You can form political parties in Hong Kong. You can publish books that are forbidden in mainland China. The media can criticize the central government and the chief executive of Hong Kong."
—"Mainland China is a tinderbox that's been physically suppressed by the authorities, and Hong Kong is a seed of fire."
—"The Communist Party is very scared of this tiny bit of land, because if true universal suffrage can blossom in Hong Kong, it is very likely true universal suffrage will end up happening in the mainland."

Capturing life's moments exactly as they happened

A couple months ago, I shared a Google+ and Twitter photo of an absolutely gorgeous and perfect DC day. Being able to take strolls on the National Mall, right in the middle of history, is just one of the advantages of being at +The George Washington University. Several weeks later, I learned (through the Center for Student Engagement Twitter) that the photo was chosen as their winner for February, something that came as a surprise to me. 

Original: https://plus.google.com/110054944436884567109/posts/cwnbek1YspK

This week, GW had a Excellence in Student Life ceremony, where the overall #OnlyAtGW photo contest winner was announced as well. People had some really cool moments showing how awesome it is here, including a group selfie with Wolf Blitzer among many others.

I didn't expect much, but here's what happened, as shown through +Google Glass.

When I first shared that photo, I honestly expected nothing more than me sharing a moment that mattered in my life -- a moment of freedom, of relaxation. I am still in awe at what it has become, especially because it all came from two apps from a device the size of my hand. On my Samsung Galaxy S4, I used the camera and Google+'s powerful +Snapseed app and the final product was available in minutes. Of that moment, right at that moment. 

From Glass to Snapseed and everything in between, I'm taken aback by how technology has empowered everyone to be able to capture the moments that matter.

And then there was this tweet, I love it.

What a fun #OnlyAtGW moment last night.

Human immaturity is to blame for human problems

Don't blame human immaturity and lack of judgement on Facebook and social media.

Neknominate is a stupid game that I've heard about several times. One of my friends received a "nomination." +CNN's article (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/18/world/europe/neknominate-drinking-game/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) does a good job explaining the game, but also spends half the time citing ridiculous people claiming the majority of the responsibility of the problems and deaths lies with Facebook and other web companies.

Let's be clear here: the sole entity responsible for this entire mess are people, the people that post the nominations, the people that don't resist peer pressure and the people that don't do anything when they see something as wrongful as this happening.

courtesy of CNN and Yahoo! News

One dad even had the courage to say, "I was cross with him [my son] but more cross with the social media involved and the way this game has just spread. The whole thing is madness and it needs some kind of sharp and swift action on the part of these social networks to stop it."

What's happening is sad. But let's be objective here. Facebook is not forcing anyone to drink large sums of alcohol from disgusting sources, just like guns aren't forcing people to shoot others. As a society, we need to stop faulting inanimate objects for problems we create ourselves.

http://iantangblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/people-hurt-people-not-inanimate-objects.html

Facebook, Google and other Internet companies act as merely a vehicle to expression and speech. They cannot, and should not, be responsible for the millions of pieces of content posted every second, just like no one is responsible of what comes out of your mouth every day. Just like in real-life, it lies in the hands of people to report content that violates rules or laws and to stand up to what is not morally right. It lies in the hands of people to use their own judgement and be mature when they choose to act a certain way.

To fault Facebook is a slippery slope towards letting corporations and governments decide what we can or cannot say and think. Let's make our own judgement calls. Let's own up to our faults.

Let's fight what's really to blame for all our human problems and stop hiding behind a scapegoat by shifting the blame on something other than human immaturity.

A new digital age.

Yesterday, my friend +Alex Leiphart shared this story: http://goo.gl/Id4mrJ ("AMC movie theater calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user"). AMC called the FBI, who then snatched Glass off the innocent man's face and interrogated him, all because they believed, without evidence nor proof, that a man was recording an entire movie, simply because he had Google Glass. The FBI even challenged him: "they wanted to know what does +Google ask of me in exchange for Glass, how much is Google paying me, who is my boss and why am I recording the movie." And that's just part of it.

Let's stop the hysteria we constantly create around new technologies.

Let's start a genuine conversation now. Comment with your thoughts below.

I certainly think it is fine for people to think Glass is not that great or all that it says it is -- some of my friends hold, or held, different beliefs and are some of my most valued opinions. In fact, that's awesome that people think differently -- the world only advances because all our thoughts are not uniform. The resulting debate is important and helps society advance. It's equally as important though that those that want to argue against it use legitimate, unexaggerated talking points after having tested what they are arguing against instead of spreading assumptions.

It seems people think Glass is almighty, believing that it knows what its users are thinking and controllable with just their minds. And those people are the ones that only assume Glass only helps users do bad -- to sneakily record movies, to cheat and more -- while never trying it for themselves. Instead, what really happens is that users have to say "Ok Glass" aloud or touch to operate it. Even the light on the screen is visible when on. In many cases, it is more noticeable than a smartphone.

However, this year, +Google Glass is expected to launch widely as well as with compatible prescription lenses. When this happens, I have no doubt a more vigorous debate will start in society about Glass.

With prescription lenses, Glass will be a required item for those who need it, just like the man in the story. But what about in the bathroom? Or when driving (just like I do with the clip-on sunglasses with Glass right now)? Users would not be able to just tilt Glass up on their heads like they currently do, as then they wouldn't be able to see.

Would society trust Glass users enough? Would users be expected to carry a second pair of regular prescription lenses? Would a large enough portion of society educate themselves enough to know that it is very visible when Glass is on and recording?

What do you think? 

A prototype of Google Glass with prescription lenses, courtesy of a Googler (via Phandroid.com).

Right now, the "rest" position for phones is in the pocket, still attached to the body. That's equivalent to placing Glass on top of the head. Or even just off. In both positions, the devices are virtually unusable.

When taking tests where teachers don't require students to put phones in the backpack, do we expect Glass to be in its rest position on the head or will it be treated differently by requiring it to be placed in its case and away from the body? When watching movies, is that expectation the same? What about when driving -- can we use it as a GPS?

That's the job of Explorers -- to live life with Glass, to take the risk of encountering ignorant people but also more generally, to educate a (for the most part) fascinated public on this new and exciting technology that has a potential to change everything we do. But the bigger responsibility at hand, the job that we all carry, Explorers or not, is the one to prevent hysteria and to speak truth to stupid.

Yet, for every stubborn person, there's a hundred more open-minded learners that dare to try Glass before passing judgement. And the smiles and awe that I have personally seen is reward that out-compensates any negativity expressed by those that are so afraid of change.

And for each negative story we hear about Glass, we hear so many more of how it is fundamentally changing the very nature of our world, from providing firefighters with the tools they need more safely and quicker and doctors with the required materials without tying up their hands to the way it helps us to just get back to living life, by bringing us ordinary people all closer together while helping capture the moments that truly matter in our lives.

I'm proud to be a Google Glass Explorer. 

My thoughts on Glass, integrity and the free flow of information

Today, I received this e-mail from my Macroeconomics Professor at +The George Washington University: "That means that Google glass and similar devices are NOT allowed during assignments..." 

I am happy that my Professor is starting this type of conversation about +Google Glass  nd new technologies so swiftly and transparently.

Certainly, as an Explorer, these situations where Glass is singled out, are expected, just like +Cecilia Abadie fighting her traffic ticket today (http://goo.gl/UN60mo) or those told to leave restaurants (http://goo.gl/neb8zf). I agree Glass should not be used during exams. Yet, it is utterly irresponsible for those in authority to single new devices like Glass, which functions just as smartphones and tablets do, in this manner. Certainly, this period of testing is where society is educating itself and distinguishing what is real and what is exaggerated by the media, both its features and limitations. For example, having Glass rest on top your head like sunglasses indoors will not enable a student to cheat and is not a qualification of cheating, just like having a phone in your pocket. However, this type of conversation is good to start.

While I don't know if this e-mail is directed to me currently, I do feel the need to share this information clearly and openly. Your feedback, both in agreement or disagreement, is encouraged.

We should embrace technology, especially with the potentials it offers education. More importantly, we should not create hysteria and spread misinformation. Finally, integrity, including in academics, is one of my core values and I believe a society well-educated in not only knowledge but also morals and values will not have these problems.

As C.S. Lewis once said, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”

From this point forward, I am reaffirming my commitment to act with integrity in an ethical and moral manner that takes into account my strict moral discipline, just like I did in 8th grade when I created study guides from public class notes and let information flow freely (allowing others to collaborate, build on top and download those guides at their own discretion) even after one teacher, with a complete opposite view than all the other parents, students and teachers, labeled it as a form of cheating.

You can learn more about my mission statement, vision and values here: 

https://plus.google.com/+iantang/about.

And that's a wrap folks

Today marks the end of my journey analyzing the social media presence and use of three different entities -- individuals and organizations. At the beginning of this semester, I set out to monitor how three different accounts related to The George Washington University used Twitter. This consisted of the main University account (@GWTweets), the University's Office of Undergraduate Admissions account (@GWAdmissions) and the University's Dean of Student Affairs account (@GWPeterK). 

Over the course of the semester, I have highlighted weekly what I observed, including the strengths and weaknesses of each account. In the end, I concluded that while the core University and the Dean of Student Affairs accounts were effective in carrying out their purposes, the GW Admissions account lacked content that targeted its specific audience. 

That in turn has become the focus of my semester project, aimed at helping the least effective of my three audiences create a better social media campaign.

Throughout the project, I also faced some challenges of my own. When looking back to reflect, it is amazing that my posts were able to have a solid amount of views.

My posts garnered a good amount of audience and views.

Posts that touched on wider topics than my three organizations generally did even better.

I have used my blog in the past to talk about important issues in society that I feel deserve more attention. I integrated the University Writing content into my blog. My main audience, with traffic driven through my personal Google+ page and public Twitter account, probably was not looking for this content from me. Yet, because of optimization of how I shared the posts, including creating a Google+ page dedicated for the blog and describing my project, it seems as if I was able to still have an audience for the posts.

Also, establishing my ethos (credibility) in this short of a time period was another challenge. Although I use social media a lot in my life and love to keep up with technology happenings, I am in no way a social media analyst or expert. Establishing my role in the field to show that what I was saying had some foundation was something that needed to be done right away. Because of the views I had, it seems that I was able to make some headway.

Overall, I think my campaign to analyze the three accounts was successful. There was a clear evolution of the campaign from the starting point to when I realized which account was the least effective. Over time, people continued to read what I had to say. Thank you to my audience and to those who are usually on here reading my other posts!

The many brands of GW

Topic	The George Washington University	The Office of Undergraduate Admissions	Dr. Peter Konwerski
Brand Name	The George Washington University	The George Washington University Office of Undergraduate Admissions	Dr. Peter Konwerski, Vice Provost and Dean of Student Affairs
Twitter Handle	@gwtweets	@gwadmissions	@gwpeterk
Mission	CLICK HERE	To select the best applicants (unofficial, general goal)	To enhance student experience (unofficial)
Product	higher-education	acceptance into GW	responses to students
Reputation	prestigious higher-education university situated in the nation's capital that produces many of this nation's leaders	admissions office that heavily promotes the University's location in the center of DC, characterized by scandalous activity such as wrong representations for US News and need-based acceptance	constantly utilizing Twitter to respond to students and those in the community
Qualities	prestigious expensive diverse	competitive opaque deceptive	transparent friendly helpful
Logo			N/A

Focus on sex appeal and a lack of morals: why Miley Cyrus (and Lady Gaga) do social media wrong

Miley Cyrus was once the innocent teen sensation, Hannah Montana. She was deemed a good role model. But, that ended as soon as she her contact with Disney was terminated. And after that, she has taken the path that many Disney stars have infamously took -- growing up way too fast and transforming to stay relevant with an older audience.

2013 was the year that Miley Cyrus completely underwent that transformation. With her jaw-dropping performance at the MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs) with Robin Thicke and continued press coverage, she has generated buzz like no other. Though that talk was in regards to the disgusting nature of her work, she has nevertheless had meteoric success. Her fame has continued to skyrocket in the past year. Paired with her personal tweets on Twitter and social media  where her voice shines through, it would seem she has hit all the right notes of marketing. Except for the morality. And that ultimately hurts the rest of a celebrity's mission to create a brand.

As Taylor Swift told Katie Couric in an interview in 2012, "I think a mistake that sometimes gets made when there's pressure to grow up, you look at that artist and you think, 'You didn't have to grow up ten years in a month. No, that wasn't what you had to do.'"

But that is exactly what Miley Cyrus has done. In fact, Cyrus has recklessly sold herself and her brand with whatever means necessary in an attempt to barge into a crowded music industry. In an attempt to promote her new album, Bangerz, she tweeted the following: 

Miley Cyrus used this tweet to promote her new album, slated to launch 2 hours after this tweet.

Cyrus' focus on creating a sex appeal is characteristic of what society expects from artists today. Look at the stories in the tabloids. Many celebrities have exploited the idea of sex appeal -- from skimpy clothing to sexual innuendos -- to fully market themselves. The interaction she received was not bad and the audience reach was most likely worldwide. 

The tweet showcases Cyrus' infamous body that was sure to generate buzz and stand out from the regular onslaught of tweets that merely contain 140 characters of text or a simple photo. Yet, the tweet cannot be considered a success. The penetration rate, or the percentage of Cyrus' followers that acted on the tweet, in terms of Favorites,  was only 0.066%. Still, later in the month, Lady Gaga decided to follow suit.

Lady Gaga used sex appeal to promote her album as well. 

Even with 40,000+ followers, she only received 8,699 Retweets and 7,650 favorites, even less than Cyrus.

Lady Gaga fared even worse than Miley Cyrus. She had even less clothing and sold herself and her brand on the premise of her body even more so than Cyrus. Still, in Favorites, the penetration rate here was an dismal 0.01%, even while Gaga has experienced more exposure and fame than Cyrus. 

Taylor Swift's innocent and simple photo of a cute cat generated more interaction than Cyrus and Gaga combined.

On the other hand, Taylor Swift shares innocent photos relevant to herself and her brand. Her tone is much more mature and professional and focuses less on her body or the sex appeal. In terms of social media and Twitter, Taylor Swift has done amazingly well. She has been more effective than virtually other players. In fact, Taylor Swift's penetration rate on a tweet of her famous cat Meredith was up to 0.08%. 

The tweet related to Swift indirectly, yet, fans were still all over it, pressing Retweet and Favorite.

Taylor Swift's promotion of her own album, that did not include any sex appeal, generated more interaction than Cyrus and Gaga individually.

Even for the promotion of her own album, she did not degrade herself to exposing her body. She still received more Retweets and Favorites than Cyrus' and Gaga's tweets with the same intention of promoting an upcoming album.  

As part of my University Writing class, the interaction each account received is the most important metric we must analyze. Though it is very appealing to me to continue talking about the unfortunate lack of morals Cyrus and Gaga have and my belief that the numbers don't show everything that is wrong, we must focus on that data today.

Miley Cyrus received the lowest amount of interaction, which can be reflected by the fact that she only has a little over 15 million followers. But, Lady Gaga has over 40 million followers, but consistently receives less interaction than Taylor Swift, with 36+ million followers. Clearly, something is working for Swift that isn't as well for Cyrus and Gaga.

Though the world sometimes appears to be less focused on morality and ethics, it seems to be the reverse on social media. Artists that focus on sex appeal receive a fair amount of interaction, but, may not reach as wide of an audience as those with a focus on values. Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga's marketing strategy is seriously flawed. The degradation of their self-respect has not made their tweets as effective as they could be. 

Artists and celebrities are role models for the rest of society and should remember the responsibility they have to act with ethics and morality instead of pushing themselves to the borderline of prostitution.

Finding the perfect scholarly article for my semester project

Finding a perfect source to use that is relevant to a paper or research topic can be daunting sometimes, especially when the scope is narrowed to just scholarly articles.

But I have seemed to find the perfect scholarly article that will help advance my research on why social media is so important in advancing the mission of any undergraduate admission office for a university.

The scholarly article was found through the ERIC database through The George Washington University's library. It covers exactly everything I want it too. And as an added bonus, it is written by a students. Using Technology in Undergraduate Admissions: A Student Perspective, by Robin Lindbeck and Brian Fodrey, in the "Journal of College Admissions" captures the reasons and statistics as to why social media is important based on the viewpoint of students. In other words, universities can have a chance to hear exactly what goes through a student's thought process and how they can make themselves more appealing to the average student. 

For this reason, it will fit very well in the "Case for Employing Social Media" and new proposed campaign sections of my proposal for the Office of Undergraduate Admissions at The George Washington University.

The argument that it makes is that the perspective of the prospective student has been absent from the discussion as to why and in what way universities should use social media. It aims to present a view that is representative of students. It shows how students' college decisions were influenced by a wide variety of technologies. To that degree, it relates it back to the overarching theme of why social media is actually very important to higher education.

Though there are obviously many variables that can be found in a study such as this, the article is very sound in what it has to say. As a quick note, I was convinced first of all because I felt some of the same feelings and went through some of the exact same things the article mentions when I applied to college. But also, its studies also cited prior research that agreed with it. Its own study also covered a wide-range of different students and addresses further research that can be conducted and how the current research can be applied immediately.

This study directly shows the important and need for a presence on social media from universities, specifically the admissions office. It gives context and reasoning behind what I believe and am advocating for and supports the idea that I am presenting.

The real audience of college admissions offices

The George Washington University's Office of Undergraduate Admissions is on social media to lure students to apply to the world's only university at the center of Washington, D.C. It also is one of several university admissions office that actively engages with users on social media.

However, its audience is narrow because of the scope of the topic. Unlike other organizations that aim to exponentially increase their follower counts, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions cannot have the same ambitions because it functions in a fundamentally different way. Admissions is usually a one-time event during the last year of high school. After that, once a student is accepted, there is no point to stay in touch with the Admissions office. Current students and alumni do not have an interest in following an admissions account that showcases what is great about the University and the process of becoming a student. In that sense, the audience for the Office of Undergraduate Admissions can be categorized under one group.

Its audience is primarily young, prospective college students who are usually in their senior year of high school. This range of people are on social media a lot and may be more impacted by marketing through this medium more so than through traditional methods such as radio and TV advertisements and direct letter.

In a Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project study, it found that its youngest age group, from 18 to 29, used social media most heavily, with an overwhelming 89% of the group using Twitter regularly. Never in history has there been such a hub for communication and marketing, even, quite possibly, a public square and forum. Because of the number of people on there, organizations, including the Office of Undergraduate Admissions can easily and effectively target its specific audience (its followers).

College-aged students started the frenzy of social media in the first place, driving MySpace and Facebook to extreme popularity. Facebook was even made in a college dorm by a college student. Because of this, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions is pushing updates that are virtually shoved into users' faces who all find the updates relevant. Many institutions, especially Yale, have focused heavily on using social media and marketing to attract prospective students. Those that have started enhancing their social media presence have focused on expanding communication with the general public and "broadening" their marketing.

Amongst that group, the audience can also continue to break down and get more narrow and specific. This can help a school bring up application rates from groups with regularly low enrollment. Harvard is using social media to specifically target prospective students who have lower incomes and require more financial aid. With social media, it can help them better get their word out.

The Office of Undergraduate Admissions' focus on young people is very appropriate and will, in the long-run, most likely help the University with application numbers. There will be more widespread knowledge in the young people group as people continue to embrace social media.


Sources:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/10/24/financial-aid-office-connection/
http://www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2013/11514/who-uses-social-networks-age-race-gender-and-income-breakdown
http://www.universitybusiness.com/article/admissions-goes-social
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/02/04/admissions-office-amplifies-social-media-presence/

Economics discounts the innate good in people

"The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage..."
-Man of Steel

Or does it?

Is there something bigger we want to reach for or is self-interest our basic resting pulse? 

-The Newsroom

After my Microeconomics class today, this article ("Does Studying Economics Breed Greed?"by Adam Grant) popped up on my +LinkedIn feed. The article cited studies that showed how Economics was creating students with less values and more greed. Very appropriate. And I completely agree. As interesting as Economics is, I was telling my mom earlier this school year why I think it is fundamentally flawed.

Economics virtually asserts self-interest is 100% responsible for explaining how humans act. And it promotes that sense -- that our world is better when we focus on self-interest and maximizing our own utility. It states that this allows society to be more efficient and have more of everything and more is better. In fact, throughout the years, I have been told that Economics can happen because of "greed," and that it actually makes us all better off.

Courtesy: http://blog.tifwe.org/c-s-lewis-greed-and-self-interest/

But I'd like to think that the world doesn't work that way. That there's innate good in each individual. That we can have maximized efficiency while also being moral.

I was also telling my mom the other day that society's focus on economics, the economy, pure dollar signs and percentages, instead of over morals and values, is the exact reason our world economy is where it is today. The reason that 2008, and everything afterwards, happened.

In sports, you can't win a game by merely focusing on "winning." Likewise, you can't fix the economy by only caring about the numbers. In both, it's about the underlying values, whether it's the fundamental skills and teamwork or the sense of instilling morality.

It isn't a greed-less world that we are striving for. Or even one where everyone receives the same resources. Instead, it is one where we can harness greed to truly make the world a better place. It's one where competition, cooperation, ethics, morals and openness are all promoted.

Because we don't want to end up like the people of Krypton.

Social media utilization: weekly round-up 5

This is the fifth weekly round-up in which I analyze and monitor three Twitter accounts that I have chosen for their use of social media. The full explanation is here: http://iantangblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/explanation-of-semester-blog.html.

Today marks the end of the fifth week since I have started tracking their utilization, each using Twitter. Again, it was clear that the three entities have very distinct uses of social media, all aiming to contribute to the marketing of The George Washington University.


The George Washington University (@GWTweets)
The general University account continued to focus on what was happening around campus and heavily promoted Parents' Weekend and The Fray concert. It did a good job producing engaging content this week and garnered more Retweets and Favorites than usual. Because of the wide-range of topics, there wasn't a theme that represented the week.

The account did send out several tweets everyday while making sure not to cross the line to annoying. This can be shown because of the consistent interaction with the account. It used direct mentions and hashtags throughout. There wasn't too much special to note about this account.

The George Washington University Office of Undergraduate Admissions (@GWAdmissions)
The Office of Undergraduate Admissions continued to focus on their limited audience instead of the wider community as a whole. However, this week, it also had a very specific tweet aimed just at those applying at Early Decision.

Early Decision applications are binding and are designed for students most interested in attending a certain school. Many of the Office of Undergraduate Tweets get almost no interaction, yet this tweet received 6 Retweets and 9 Favorites, as well as a question. This is probably because the students most interested in attending the school are also probably more likely to pay attention to the Office's Twitter account and announcements.

Though the audience is limited, it does show the type of followers that the Office of Undergraduate Admissions has and the content they should focus on. People who follow them mainly want updates to the application process. Because its Twitter handle is already so specific, its tweets should be as well. There is no need for it to cover as wide and broad of topics as it previously has because its audience doesn't care much about it.

The tweet only used a generic hashtag, but because it was so important and valuable to the people following the account, it naturally garnered lots of attention. This result probably would not have been the same when tweeting from the general GW account since most people there probably are not looking to apply for Early Decision. They are probably already part of the community.

This week, it didn't tweet about Parents' Weekend, but still garnered much attention. It could be problematic in that if they choose to only focus on the specific application process, there will be an endless cycle of following and unfollowing that takes place.

Peter Konwerski, Senior Associate Provost and Dean of Student Affairs (@GWPeterK)
Unlike Alumni Weekend when Dr. Konwerski changed his cover photo to a related banner promoting the special event, the same cannot be said for Parents' Weekend. The generic and typical University photo was kept. Furthermore, there was not one overarching theme to Dr. Konwerski's tweets this week. During Alumni Weekend, there was a dedicated hashtag on almost all of his tweets, which was "#GWAW13." Though he did use #ColonialsWeekend throughout the week, it was more sporadic and used less often.

The fact that he only used "#ColonialsWeekend" once in 6 consecutive tweets implicates that Parents' Weekend may be less important than Alumni Weekend. In fact, the use of the hashtag was not originally from Dr. Konwerski as well. The lack of focus on Parents' Weekend may be the fact that that specific audience is known to not widely use Twitter or any other type of social network besides Facebook. Parents have been known for "invading" Facebook over the past several years, but many still are not on Twitter.

Therefore, Dr. Konwerski may have wanted to continue engaging with the audiences that do use Twitter most, instead of direct his tweets at an audience that may not be there.

Though it made his account look all over the place, it was able to cover a variety of interests and groups of people, whether they were students or part of the University community. There were many tweets about events taking place on Twitter and the focus on tweeting content with a photo attached makes it more engaging to look at.

This week, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions excelled again at their use of social media. While they have typically been the least effective because of its lack of focus and being seemingly indecisive, this week, it doubled down on what the account was actually made for and received more interaction than usual. Because the account wasn't made for a broad purpose, the focus it provided this week actually worked in its favor.

The importance of social media in education

Social media has had an important impact on education, in addition to the other major areas of life that it has fundamentally transformed. The better communication that can arise from good use of social media on an institution's part has the ability to create a well-informed student body, meaning more student engagement, more interested prospective students and community that aspire to go to that institution as well as a safer environment for learning to occur. This makes institutions stronger and proves why social media is so important in the field of education.

Source: http://synthesio.com/corporate/en/2013/uncategorized/5-universities/

Events

With the amount of events that go on around a college campus, it's hard for students to hear about everything that is going on, much less keep track of the days and times those events are. Because students are always on social media, especially when they are bored, social media quite literally injects announcements right in front of students' faces. Instead of requiring students to go to a different location to find these announcements, social media allows a central hub where students can have the streams of both personal and professional life. They can easily learn about the events taking place around campus and even join in on the conversation to immediately ask about important details, such as location and time. Instead of posters, social media allows for back-and-forth communication, instead of a one-way interaction. On top of that, many schools are able to generate buzz via social media by advertising "hashtags" that relate to the event. Each student that tweets about the event using that specified hashtag will extend the reach of audience that the university has. And, best of all, that is being created with no extra cost to the university.

Source: Mashable, http://mashable.com/2009/07/15/social-media-public-affairs/

Marketing (Branding, Customer Service and Feedback)

Social media has also played an important role in helping the reputation of an institution and how it looks in the eyes of the public. In fact, for prospective students alone, according to DigitalTrends, "some 38 percent categorized their social media findings as influential in their enrollment decision." Facebook accounts for 57% of that research method, while YouTube accounts for 42% and Twitter 18%. This means that the online presence they build directly relates back to the interest that is shown from prospective students. To make sure that the smartest and most brilliant people continue to be captivated by a college in this new age, a college must show it is capable of building an online presence that is both engaging and "cool," as in that the institution shows it understands and is relevant to the modern age. With social media being a two-way street, it also allows personal connections to form where students will feel more inclined to apply to a university because of attention he or she may get from the university. A tweet, a favorite or Retweet directed at a particular student may make that one student feel special and spread goodwill about the institution.

Source: DigitalTrends, http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/college-grads/; ZDNet, http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/how-do-universities-use-social-media-successfully/15059

Safety

In the past several years, social media has also played a large role in getting the word about alerts and security breaches, not just in universities but in large cities around the world. This has been extremely important because of the far reaches of social media in an age when security is becoming a high priority in society. It has worked really well in getting people to know about the ongoing security events because everyone is always on social media. As USA Today Educate quotes:

'Students use social media on a daily basis,' Sara Estes Cohen, an independent consultant in social media specializing in emergency response, said. 'It is important that emergency managers use the tools their communities are using.'

Again, as mentioned before, in addition to the fact that everyone uses social media, it also allows for a two-way communication: "The fact that it allows the community to post calls for help, questions, and other comments is what makes social media unique." This keeps the community much safer and educates students on the current situations on the campus.

Source: USAToday Educate, http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/ccp/more-universities-relying-on-social-media-for-emergency-communication

How to tweet ineffectively

Over the past month, I have monitored activity from three Twitter accounts: the official account of The George Washington University (@GWTweets), the official account of The George Washington University's Office of Undergraduate Admissions (@GWAdmissions) and the account of the Dean of Student Affairs and Vice Provost, Dr. Peter Konwerski (@GWPeterK).

Of the three, I have slowly concluded that the Office of Undergraduate Admissions uses their social media, specifically Twitter, in the least effective way. The Office of Undergraduate Admissions has such a limited role that is reflected in its use of social media. Its tweets do not get much interaction because it has a narrow scope of audience.

This was one of its recent tweets:

This tweet is specifically directed to prospective students currently in the middle of the college application process. It has a brief description of the image that is included with the tweet. However, the main focus is on the image and the tweet would be meaningless and useless if there was no attached photo. For this reason, it is very image-driven. The purpose is to inform prospective students that they can schedule an interview with the Office of Undergraduate Admissions, even if they do not live close of campus.

It is surprising that the Office of Undergraduate Admissions decided to disseminate this type of information in this manner, especially because the interview is not a required aspect of an application. There was no rush in tweeting this information (see paragraph below) and narrows the audience to just those applying to the University. It automatically excludes everyone else that may be just looking at going to The George Washington University. It can obviously be implied that the Office of Undergraduate Admissions assumes that their entire audience is comprised of prospective students since the tweet doesn't necessarily use a specific pronoun or subject.

It is a lot of information and people who are on Twitter are probably not trying to search for information regarding application interviews. Instead, they are trying to catch up on updates. Furthermore, the tweet was sent out in August 2013, several months before high school seniors really consider their applications. The interest may have been low, which the absence of Favorites and Retweets show.  It isn't content one would actively Favorite or Retweet either.

I think that this tweet is ineffective, especially on Twitter, because it focuses so heavily on the image. There was no link included where additional information can be found in a full-sized page. The image takes several clicks to open fully and may not be clear. However, it does allow for a better preview. Still, the narrow scope of the tweet and the difficulties the broader public may have relating to this renders the tweet ineffective, except to a very targeted audience that definitely did not perceive the tweet well.