Bridging the Digital Divide

Digital media is everywhere.  Or is it?

As difficult as it is to see from high in our silicon towers, a large portion of the globe has yet to feel the impact of the largest ICT revolution in history.  A mere 15% of the global population accounts for 88% of all Internet users.  Industrialized cultures immersed in digital media have failed to recognize the harsh divide between technology haves and have-nots.   Misconceptions abound.  Despite arguments that insist that the gulf is shrinking, the water has only risen.

The Boston Digital Bridge Foundation is on the frontlines in the battle to raise awareness and trumpet digital inclusion.  The BDBF seeks to provide training and equipment to Boston communities still submerged in the rising waters of the digital gulf.  The non-profit corporation was behind the successful push to network all Boston Public Schools, transforming Boston into the first fully networked school system in urban America.  Since then, the BDBF has continued to create initiatives aimed at addressing the digital divide at the grassroots level.

BDBF’s Technology Goes Home program exemplifies the organization’s mission and methods.  Launched in 1999, it’s goal then is the same now.  Technology Goes Home partners with the Boston public school system to serve inner-city families in need of technology training.  The program offers students in grades 4-12 and their families the opportunity to learn the ins and outs of hardware, software and networking.   At the conclusion of their 25-hour curriculum, graduates have the chance to purchase a refreshed computer and new printer at substantial discounts.

Technology Goes Home illustrates the impact that local efforts can have in closing the digital divide.  The fight has also gone global.

One Laptop Per Child is a global initiative targeting technologically deprived populations.  Created by MIT Professor Nicolas Negroponte and the Digital Bridge Foundation, OLPC’s goal is simple.  By designing, manufacturing and distributing inexpensive laptop computers, OLPC has set out to provide every child in the world with access, equipment and education.   The XO laptops are open source, energy efficient and mesh networked.  They are designed with the specific needs of impoverished communities in mind and are distributed with the hope of assisting developing countries in nurturing their most essential resource; their children.

For some of us, the Internet is everywhere.  It’s not uncommon to find yourself feeling resentful of your hyper-connectivity.  Questions even swirl around the potentially detrimental effects of our ubiquitous connection.

But for most of us, access is denied.  And the hardships of those on the wrong side of the divide dwarf the issues surrounding inclusion.  While organizations like the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation act locally, initiatives like OLPC act globally.  By treating technology as a key to unlocking potential and a means to empowerment, both programs are helping to lay the foundation necessary to bridge the digital divide.

The Digital De-Evolution

Douglas Rushkoff was once a digital enthusiast.  He could be seen as early as 1994 appearing on programs such as CNN Morning News to extol the revolutionary power of digital technology.  He adamantly professed that its widespread adoption will be remembered as a monumental step in our continuing evolution.  But as evidenced by his 2010 documentary Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier, Rushkoff has recently grown cautious in his praise.

In the years since his national television appearances, Rushkoff has noticed a fundamental change in the Internet. It is no longer “a thing one does, but a way one lives.”  According to Rushkoff, that way of life is not without its risks.

His underlying concerns regarding our unbridled submersion into the digital realm revolve around the negative effects our reliance on the virtual can have on our connection with the external.   In addition to an increase in cases of legitimate physical ailments resulting from excessive Internet usage, Rushkoff is also wary of the subtler but equally debilitating psychological impact that an addiction to digital technology can have.  He refers to digital natives who have been consumed by digital usage as “casualties of the digital revolution.”

Specifically, Rushkoff, along with Rachel Dretzin, target their expose on the myth of multi-tasking.   American high school students spend an average of 50 hours per week with digital media.  While these students remain convinced that they are capable of multi-tasking successfully, recent studies have proved otherwise, concluding that multi-tasking learning environments do not optimize learning opportunities.

Test results cited by Rushkoff and Dretzin question whether multitasking is inhibiting our abilities to engage in genuinely analytical thought.  It’s a classic struggle between quantity and quality.

Dr. Gary Small, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, has conducted studies that have demonstrated an increase in brain function when searching the Internet.   Small found that the amount of brain activity that one experiences while Googling doubles the functioning that takes place while one reads a book.  On the surface, the results are cut and dry.  Such a finding appears to support the notion that Internet activity is boosting brain activity, and therefore nurturing the intellect.  But Small is quick to point out that when measuring brain activity, less may be more.  A swell in brain activity does not necessarily equate to an increase in learning.  It may instead signal a decrease in efficiency as the brain works harder to accomplish less.

Once a champion of a deep integration of digital technologies within our lives, Rushkoff now wonders if our increase in digital media usage can be linked to what he describes as a “shrinking capacity to think.”  Ruskoff and Dretzin ponder the same question that Mark Bauerlein poses; are we raising “The Dumbest Generation?”  As Bauerlein’s The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future suggests, “the dawn of the digital age” once aroused our hopes for a hyper-informed era.  Now it raises fears for a hyper-connected but constantly distracted generation.

Rushkoff goes as far as to compare our naivety regarding the potential pitfalls of digital media to our long dismissal of the perils of smoking.  Though digital media may not be a killer, it is a threat.  Finding a balance between our digital and daily lives will be a key component to maintaining a healthy information metabolism in the digital nation.

Mice in the Social Media Maze: Have We Found the Cheese?

Marketers love numbers.  And new numbers regarding social media marketing are in.

Michael A. Stelzner, founder of Social Media Examiner, has issued his 2010 Social Media Marketing Industry Report.  Published in April, Stelzner’s report outlines responses from 1898 participants to various questions regarding their social media usage.  When reviewing the numbers, it’s important to note that 63% of those surveyed are small business owners.  But despite an apparent lean towards the small business perspective, the report highlights some telling trends and statistics.

First, there are some big picture findings.  An overwhelming 91% of those surveyed indicated that they are currently employing social media marketing tactics, up from 80% a year ago.  Over 60% of respondents who have been using social media for a few years claimed that their use of social media has helped reduce overall marketing expense.  Now there’s a number that might catch an employer’s eye.

But what about attracting the all-important eye of the consumer?  85% of respondents identified “generating exposure for the business” as the number one advantage to their social media participation.  Among those who have been engaged in social media for a few years, 100% claimed that they are successfully attracting consumers through social media channels.

It’s one thing to get their attention.  What happens once you have it is another, and skeptics of social media usage often question the viability of leads generated through social network participation.   Stelzner’s study suggests that companies willing to devote just a few hours to social media marketing are seeing results.   Businesses that claimed to spend as few as 6 hours per week on their social media presence also claimed that they have generated “qualified leads” after only a few months.

Those successes are inspiring increased usage with a focus shifting towards the growing mobile market.  75% of marketers surveyed are currently using mobile networking apps to interact with fans, while another 43% have recognized the need to optimize their sites for mobile apps and have initiated the process.  While a relatively small percentage of businesses are developing mobile apps (19%), there’s an increasing overall awareness among marketers for the need to engage on the go.

The numbers are encouraging.  But they’re also incomplete.

Examinations of social media marketing strategies continue to overlook two major considerations — 1) ethical issues when entering social media and 2) the issue of what is done with the information that is gathered through social media participation.

Last year’s First Annual Social Media Survey conducted by PRWeek and MS & L polled 271 chief marketing officers, vice presidents of marketing and marketing directors.  As explained by Kimberly Maul breaks down some of the survey’s findings in her October article entitled Reality Check, the survey asked a series of questions around ethical issues that companies must consider when venturing into social media spaces.  Respondents were asked if their companies had engaged in any of the following activities:

• positioning company-generated content as consumer-generated
• changing content related to the company that others have posted in social media
• removing negative comments or content from social media
• offering gifts for company or blog reviews
• paying cash for company or product blog reviews

Only 57% of those surveyed were able to deny using any of these tactics.  A surprising 21% of respondents admitted to presenting company-generated content as consumer-generated, while 13% revealed that they had changed content relating to their company that others had posted in social media.

Analysts and strategists have trumpeted social media as a conduit for genuine communication and collaboration between company and consumer.  An organization’s successful navigation of social media spaces depends largely on their ability to enter with an authentic voice.  If these numbers are any indication, this is proving even more difficult than skeptics had predicted.

The study revealed that nearly half of the businesses surveyed admitted to using dishonest tactics while attempting to participate within social media spaces.  Other survey responses indicated that many companies are attempting to carve out a social media niche without any concrete strategies or objectives.  In a presentation outlining current social media trends, Cathy Freeman explained that only 29% of companies who are using social media have installed an organizational social media policy.

Without a cohesive strategy in place, one can’t help but call into question the intentions of these corporations.  Are they exploring social media as a means of nurturing genuine relationships with consumers, or are they simply doing it because the guy next to them is?

Responses in the 2009 survey to questions concerning what becomes of the information that is gathered through social media platforms cast further doubt.  When asked if their company had ever made any changes to products or strategies based on consumer feedback from social media sites, just 34% of the companies using social media indicated that they had.

Much attention is paid to finding ways to better measure the effectiveness of a company’s social media presence. The question of how to measure ROI was the number one question on respondents’ minds in the 2010 survey.  Yet only a third of businesses have ever acted in response to the input they receive.  Why worry about collecting information or the accuracy of it if it’s not going to be used to effect change? What are marketers learning from their time spent “socializing,” and how are they employing their newly gained knowledge?