Yeah...weird I know. Who reads the paper anymore? But with free delivery service to the campus residence halls, I couldn't pass it up....That's beside the point!
I'm a social media hound! I turned to the Business Day section and saw the infamous word "Facebook". My eyes were fixed! I whipped out my highlighter and began reading.
The article by Verne G. Kopytoff attempts to destroy rumors about Flickr's dying trend as a photo-sharing website. But for me the article simply re-instated that Facebook will never be defeated.
"I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF FLICKR" That's probably because you adopted Facebook First.
"I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF FLICKR" That's probably because you adopted Facebook First.
Flickr is a site owned and maintained by Yahoo! I remember being about grade-school age and using Yahoo! for everything, games, e-mail (or lack-there-of) and news updates when I got into high-school. But the arrival of MySpace and Facebook, Yahoo! seemed to disintegrate into the world of social media. I know a few people that still use the venue for world updates and e-mails (which seems to also be a dying trend) but Yahoo's leading competitor is Google. I mean... c'mon folks.
According to The Times article "Yahoo's top executives have barely mentioned Flickr publicly for some time. Few top executives actually have a public Flickr account." The embarrassment of the deceased photo-sharing network seems to be a direct cause of Facebook's increasing popularity. The article points out that there are 123.9 million users who upload pictures to Facebook, while Flickr tops out a measly 21.3 million. (Those numbers seem huge to me, but who am I to say)
Flickr users are often times professional or showcase photographers. In this case Flickr is more of a professional venue to share photos. There are endless amounts of articles about pictures on Facebook being to risky, wild, inappropriate (the adjectives are copious). Facebook seems to be constant status updates through picture sharing medium while Flickr remains to be professionally sound. This is a benefit to some, but not for the mainstream, no-time-to-think social media users today.
I have a few photographer friends and every once and a while I get an e-mail link to see their photos. The quality is clearly better but there is really no easy way of scanning the photos. You have to have a log-in name (along with your Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Gmail accounts to remember) and our minds have been so programmed to venues like Facebook, I find it difficult to use. The format of social media sites is simple. Flickr is outdated in this aspect.
One idea that caught my eye in this article was that Flickr and Yahoo were planning to grant more viewership to trending current events through photos. I thought this was a genius idea and it's something that Facebook could definitely benefit from. With venues like twitpic some of these ideas are already in progress. Maybe Flickr could use it's reputable professionalism and instill some plans to encourage this.
WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO...
But the mainstream screams "FACEBOOK!" And we can't really shy away from that it all goes back to good ole' Communication Theory class and the SIDE Theory (social identification/de-individuation model). This communication model claims that we often set aside our own desires in order to become more socially acceptable in society [Postumes/Spears]. Not be extreme, but seriously "everyone is doing it" Facebook that is.
No other comment in this article grabbed my social media psyche than "The internet is starting to rotate around the axis of Facebook..." I find this to be completely true as you'll find in all of my social media blog entries. Matthew Rosenberg (of Flickr) mentions in this article that he wants to bring back the simplicity of photo-sharing where it was "a rich storytelling experience" and not just something you breeze through on a day to day basis. But Mr. Zuckerberg has changed all that. I own one photo album. When my computer is near crashing, I tell the guy to save my music and my pictures. Everything is electronic and everything is public.
I've made the debate several times that Facebook will become a monopoly. This article pillars my argument.
((Statistics and article from The New York Times. Monday, January 31, 2011. Business Day; B3 "At Flickr; Fending off Rumors and Facebook" by Verne G. Kopytoff.))
According to The Times article "Yahoo's top executives have barely mentioned Flickr publicly for some time. Few top executives actually have a public Flickr account." The embarrassment of the deceased photo-sharing network seems to be a direct cause of Facebook's increasing popularity. The article points out that there are 123.9 million users who upload pictures to Facebook, while Flickr tops out a measly 21.3 million. (Those numbers seem huge to me, but who am I to say)
Flickr users are often times professional or showcase photographers. In this case Flickr is more of a professional venue to share photos. There are endless amounts of articles about pictures on Facebook being to risky, wild, inappropriate (the adjectives are copious). Facebook seems to be constant status updates through picture sharing medium while Flickr remains to be professionally sound. This is a benefit to some, but not for the mainstream, no-time-to-think social media users today.
I have a few photographer friends and every once and a while I get an e-mail link to see their photos. The quality is clearly better but there is really no easy way of scanning the photos. You have to have a log-in name (along with your Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Gmail accounts to remember) and our minds have been so programmed to venues like Facebook, I find it difficult to use. The format of social media sites is simple. Flickr is outdated in this aspect.
One idea that caught my eye in this article was that Flickr and Yahoo were planning to grant more viewership to trending current events through photos. I thought this was a genius idea and it's something that Facebook could definitely benefit from. With venues like twitpic some of these ideas are already in progress. Maybe Flickr could use it's reputable professionalism and instill some plans to encourage this.
WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO...
But the mainstream screams "FACEBOOK!" And we can't really shy away from that it all goes back to good ole' Communication Theory class and the SIDE Theory (social identification/de-individuation model). This communication model claims that we often set aside our own desires in order to become more socially acceptable in society [Postumes/Spears]. Not be extreme, but seriously "everyone is doing it" Facebook that is.
No other comment in this article grabbed my social media psyche than "The internet is starting to rotate around the axis of Facebook..." I find this to be completely true as you'll find in all of my social media blog entries. Matthew Rosenberg (of Flickr) mentions in this article that he wants to bring back the simplicity of photo-sharing where it was "a rich storytelling experience" and not just something you breeze through on a day to day basis. But Mr. Zuckerberg has changed all that. I own one photo album. When my computer is near crashing, I tell the guy to save my music and my pictures. Everything is electronic and everything is public.
I've made the debate several times that Facebook will become a monopoly. This article pillars my argument.
((Statistics and article from The New York Times. Monday, January 31, 2011. Business Day; B3 "At Flickr; Fending off Rumors and Facebook" by Verne G. Kopytoff.))
No comments:
Post a Comment