Olympic Ban Highlights Polarized Attitudes to Social Media

According to family legend, my great uncle Willie went to Paris with the UK Olympic team in 1924 then continued to wear the blazer proudly until well into the 1950s. News that the London 2012 organizing committee intends to ban social media use by volunteers (BBC article) shows that they are perhaps out of touch with what motivates people today -- I doubt that anyone is doing it for the blazer -- and also highlights the extremely polarized attitudes to social media.

Reactions to the ban on Twitter, Facebook and Google+ are almost entirely negative and reveal that many social media users are really baffled by the decision. This is hardly surprising since social media users are by definition generally favorable to social media use and strongly critical of any restrictions. On the other side there are some equally puzzled users who find the rules reasonable. Perhaps a more balanced view is that both sides are right in a way, but Locog -- the clunky abbreviation of London Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games -- is still at fault for not finding a better solution. This case is very instructive and will long be studied in communication courses.

First of all, why all the restrictions in the first place? Cynics speculate that this is to protect vested interests in media -- newspapers and TV networks that have paid large sums for exclusive access dislike seeing rival videos on YouTube.  I doubt that this is the real reason. More likely it is just the old-fashioned idea that you have to control the conversation or it doesn't take place. This used to be mainstream practice in corporate communications where every contact with outsiders had to be approved upfront. Technology has made this approach largely irrelevant and today PR people learn to mobilize other people to engage with audiences without this level of censorship, but the attitude still persists.

Actually there are some cases where restrictions on sharing text, audio and photos would be quite reasonable. One obvious one is when it would interfere with your work. Even though I am a great fan of social media I would think it distracting if one of the medal bearers were to pull out an iPhone and try to video the ceremony with one hand and hold the medal with the other. In the same way I imagine that you would be miffed if you were waiting in line at a supermarket checkout and the employee kept stopping to take pictures.  It could also be downright dangerous if someone were to walk around the arena with their eyes on their phone while people around them are throwing heavy balls and sharp pointy things, just like you would not want to see your taxi driver tweeting. There can also be obvious privacy issues backstage where the athletes prepare, just like you might be annoyed if you are in hospital and staff were trying to get pictures of you to share with their friends. I am less convinced of the security excuse, but it is conceivable that in some cases this might be valid.

While I can see that there are some cases where restrictions could be reasonable this does not mean that the ban makes sense. First of all because it is unenforceable.  It is difficult to see how you can physically stop people using social media short of confiscating everybody's  phones and  as unpaid volunteers they are not going to be deterred by any threats of dismissal. More importantly the ban reveals a failure to understand the role social media play in people's lives today. What will motivate volunteers in 2012 is not the free blazer but the thrill of being able to share in this moment of glory with their friends.  A blanket ban is more or less the equivalent of arguing that since burglars use flashlights they should be banned. A more measured response that both limits and encourages would motivate the volunteers, spare the organizers the embarrassment of a PR fail and turn this liability into an asset.

Locog is not only shooting its own feet off, it is also missing a unique opportunity to exploit the enthusiasm of the 70,000 volunteers to connect with the public. As long as people are allowed only to retweet official tweets they will do nothing of the sort. Replace the ban with a mixture of sensible restrictions and encouragement and they can mobilize this resource to work for the benefit of the games, bringing them closer to the community.

+



Related posts on Social Media:

Communicating Social Media Restrictions: Lessons from the London Olympic Volunteer Ban

For more detailed advice, lectures, workshops, coaching and writing on persuasion, influencing, social media and other communication topics visit andrewhennigan.com. You can also contact me by email at conseil@andrewhennigan.com or phone at 0033 6 79 61 42 81.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Best Regards: How to Start and End Your Emails

Image
Last year I wrote that to make your email more effective you should put meaningful content into the subject line, keep your messages short and consider other channels (see Three Timesaving Tips for Email ). I also wrote some guidelines about common culture problems when email crosses borders (see Three Non-Obvious Ways Culture Affects Email ). But there is one other question about international email that comes up regularly in workshops: how should you start and finish? Do I use "Dear", "Hi",or "Hello" to start with? What do I do if I don't know if the person I am writing to is a man or a woman? "What is the difference between "Best regards  and "Warm regards"? This is a question that puzzles many people and a while ago it stressed me, too. But the answers to these questions are perhaps easier than you imagine. DEAR MR/MRS WHATEVER . First of all, at the start of a mail you probably have some sort of salutation. How do you kn
Read more

Reverting to Emails: Confusion and the Indian English Language

Image
In workshops about global email many people focus on their issues communicating with colleagues in India. Partly this is related to some deeper cultural differences that lead to misunderstandings. But many problems are also caused by the different ways in which Indian people use English. There are some "English" words that you will probably only hear in India, like " stepney ", their word for a spare wheel. A hundred years ago this term was coined in the UK and was exported to India where it survived. Back home only a few antique vehicle enthusiasts have any idea what it means. There are also many English expressions that are peculiar to India, like "What is your good name?". But in both cases an English speaker from elsewhere would just see an unfamiliar expression and either ask what it means or google it. Most problems are caused by another kind of difference: where a standard US or UK English word is used but with a different meaning. Recently s
Read more

TED’s Magical Red Carpet

Image
Watch any TED(x) video or, better still, attend a live event, and you will probably notice that speakers stand in the middle of a circular red carpet. This choice is not just a question of aesthetics. That red carpet actually plays a key role in the success of the TED format. Having the speaker stand in the middle of a red carpet has several important consequences, leading the speaker to follow best practices that they might not be aware of. No script or notes . Since there is no table, lectern or other furniture within reach, the speaker cannot easily read from a script. This forces them to deliver their talk from memory, which is much more compelling because few people can read from a script and make it sound natural. And no matter how good you are at reading, the audience can see that your eyes are scanning the text and this breaks the magical connection with their minds. Encouraging people to speak from memory pushes them to make a much better talk than they might ot
Read more