The Challenge: Battle of the Sexes

The battle of the sexes continues on but this time it’s moved to social media. Finances Online recently released an infographic showing in detail the different ways men and women utilize social media and the many outlets it has to offer.

The infographic shows that men are more likely to use social media to date and conduct business where as women are more likely to use it for entertainment and sharing with friends and followers. It also shows that women are more likely to go to social media for self-help or how to demonstrations than men (obviously, because men hate asking for help).

Another huge difference in how men and women use social media is their observance of advertisements. Women are far more likely to ignore social media and text ads than men. They’re also much less likely to refrain from taking action on digital paid advertising. Men on the other hand are more likely to scan QR codes or coupons because they prefer quick access to deals and information whereas women prefer to follow brands for deals and coupons.

However, there is one aspect of social media that both men and women use in equal amounts. Men and women both enjoy social media advertisements that are either humorous or have a celebrity endorsement further proving the lifelong saying “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus,” to be true.

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/16454.aspx

Are you on Google+?

Today, if you were to ask someone if they were on Facebook and their response was no, you’d probably react with “What? No way! Everyone is on Facebook.” Over one billion people across the globe have a Facebook account. Twitter is also another growing social media platform with over 200 million monthly active users. Other social media platforms that are becoming more and more popular include YouTube, Instagram, and Pinterest. However, if people were to ask if you were on Google+ and your response was no, it would probably be less surprising than if you said yes.

Google+ has only 90 million monthly active users, less than half of that of Twitter. When first introduced, media said it could be the “Facebook Killer,” and replace the world’s most widely used social media website. Clearly, however, thats not the case. Google+ defines itself as a “social networking and identity service.” The website allows you to video chat with friends, share pictures, and post articles, but why do that when you can do it on Facebook?

Because of Google+’s meager image, it was thought that it didn’t have much value to marketers or anyone trying to spread the word about their service or product. However, it seems as though a recent article by Forbes stated otherwise. Turns out, Google+ referrals spend more time on sites and visit more pages which means G+ users are usually more engaged. Brands are able to engage Google+ users more than other sites because of this unique quality.

While I think Google+ has it’s pros, I wouldn’t suggest to marketers to just abandon the Facebook and Twitter ship. They are the two most widely used social media sites today and I know a lot of market-to-consumer interaction takes place on both platforms. However, I also see how beneficial it would be to create a presence there as well.

http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource-how-many-people-use-the-top-social-media/#.U0h6_xb7rzI

http://www.prdaily.com/socialmedia/Articles/16448.aspx

Freedom to Speak?

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down the case McCutcheon v. FEC.

The case involved Alabama businessman, Shaun McCutcheon who frequently donated thousands of dollars during the last election cycle. However, McCutcheon was limited in his funds giving due to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). FECA limits the amount an individual can donate to candidates and political parties in a calendar year.

McCutcheon felt as though FECA’s contribution limitations was a violation of the First Amendment. The Republican National Committee joined McCutcheon in his argument and eventually their case made its way to the Supreme Court. On April 2, five of the nine justices ruled that FECA’s aggregate contribution limits were unconstitutional and eliminating the $2,500 cap on individual donations.

After the final verdict was announced, many citizens said the ruling was a huge victory for our right to freedom of speech. A common trend in American politics is those with the most money make the biggest impact on the outcome. Big business owners and other millionaires were able to somewhat influence the outcome of elections. It takes quite a bit of money to fund an election campaign, and these big business tycoons were able to give money to their preferred candidate in order to help them cross the finish line first.

But how did they get past the individual donations cap? By simply creating a Super PAC (Political Action Committee). Super PACs have no limit on how much they can donate and they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, and other groups without any limit on the amount of the donation. Because they can take up donations from individuals, they’re able to take they’re own money, place it in their Super PACs name, and finally donate it to whatever party they wish.

After the the case was decided, Forbes magazine published an article declared a powerful statement, “A key and often forgotten point about the First Amendment: it protects speech, not speakers.” Because of the final ruling of McCutcheon v. FEC, more speakers now have a voice and can make a bigger impact on the outcome in elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/04/the-mccutcheon-supreme-court-case-is-a-victory-for-free-speech/

Trending Topics

Four families are left to grieve after another mass shooting took place at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas Wednesday evening.

Ivan Rodriquez, included amongst those dead, opened fire around 8 p.m. on post killing three other memebers of the military and injuring 16 others

This is the second mass shooting to take place at Fort Hood. Just five years ago, Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 others and left over 30 injured making it the worst shooting to ever take place on an American Military base.

Twitter was the first place many people became aware of the situation and #FortHood quickly became the number one trending topic on the website.

Tweets from the Killeen Daily Herald, CNN, Fox4 and other sites poured out more information as fast it came to them.

Another popular account that was visitors frequently while the shooting occurred was spokesperson John Kirby, for Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. However, during the chaos, Kirby made a detrimental mistake in one of his tweets. Kirby accidentally tweeted a link to Duffel Blog, a satirical site similar to the Onion that focuses on the military.

While Kirby caught his mistake and apologized for the inconsiderate tweet, it still left many followers distraught.

I completely understand that during these chaotic times it's easy to make a mistake such as this. Kirby scanned over the article quickly and sent it without thinking much about it because he wanted to get the news out to people as quickly as possible. However, though it is important that the public be kept up to date, it's also a great rule of thumb to make sure you're delivering the correct news. I can't tell you how many articles I read or tweets I saw that said so many different things during the shooting. Some said there were no fatalities, others said there were almost a dozen. It was extremely frustrating and I'm sure cause even more panic in those families with someone on or near the base at that time.

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/16423.aspx