PR-Bridge

Contact: William Cooper

Project Manager

wdcooper@mail.usf.edu

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE TWITTER-LESS 

Millennials are not “friending” or “tweeting” about companies and brands as widely assumed 

TAMPA, APRIL 14, 2009 — In an era when “Tweets” have little to do with pet shops, are Millennials all they are cracked up to be in the social media universe? A recent survey conducted by a research team from the Walter E. Griscti chapter of the Public Relations Student Society of America at the University of

Of the 250 Florida college students surveyed, 99 percent use social networking sites. However, only 15 percent have an account with Twitter and 34 percent have never even heard of the site.  Some 58 percent of the students who have Twitter accounts never use the service or rarely log-on.

“There is a stereotype that because students are always plugged in that they understand the strategic uses of social media sites,” said Kelli Burns, professor at the University of South Florida and author of the forthcoming Celeb 2.0: How Social Media Foster our Fascination with Popular Culture. “Businesses have a misconception that students know how to use Twitter; these findings prove otherwise.”

The research team survey results reveal two distinct findings. First, college students are not active Twitter users. More importantly, they are not interested in interacting with brands through social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

A common misconception is that sites like Twitter offer an innovative way for advertisers and companies to interact with the young demographic. However, 75 percent of students say they would be “not at all interested in” or “don’t care about” following brands, companies, or organizations on Twitter.

Many companies assume that social media enables college students to be smarter consumers. Sites like Twitter, social media analysts claim, act as a medium for the new two-way communication between brands and consumers. Given the media chatter about the importance of social networking for corporations, there is a disconnect between the promise of social media and reality.

The research team’s results reveal that a mere 6 percent of college students follow companies and only 4 percent follow brands on social media sites. These findings suggest that if corporations and communicators continue to bet on college students using social media sites effectively, they may come up empty handed.

The fact is that college students use social media sites primarily for keeping in touch with friends, not for networking or brand interaction. Until Millennials become less weary of this interaction, the gap between what business professionals expect and what college students actually know will continue to widen.

About the Walter E. Griscti Chapter of PRSSA at the University of South Florida  

Since its founding, the Walter E. Griscti Chapter of PRSSA at the University of South Florida has developed into a top-tier chapter filled with talented students eager to enhance their knowledge about public relations. Involvement in the chapter enables members to network with professionals and peers, learn about internships, hear guest speakers, attend national conferences, publish articles in its newsletter, participate in the national Bateman competition, volunteer in the community, and attend socials each month. 

The chapter works closely with the Tampa Bay chapter of PRSA and the Tampa Bay chapter of the Florida Publi Relations Association (FPRA) to provide numerous networking opportunities for its members. These strong relationships allow members to work face-to-face with those already in the industry. For more information please visit, http://prssausf.webs.com

If social media kills journalism and newspapers as we know them (i.e. the death threats announced by the New York Times Co. regarding the Boston Globe), what will take their place? According to BusinessWeek MediaCentric columnist Jon Fine, a potential replacement already exists — the “Journalist-Consultant.”

Fine’s analysis is, well, fine: the Web provides organizations with direct consumer access, which displaces journalism’s centrality as a content provider. As a result, journalists are turning to new media to create businesses that utilize their skills, essentially transforming into public relations practitioners (though I imagine the label would cause many of them to visibly shudder).

The challenge, Fine rightly addresses, is that at Abrams Research (a consulting firm founded by former MSNBC anchor Dan Abrams), touts its access, “to active journalists and bloggers.” One can only imagine the ethical firestorm this kind of “consulting” might ignite.

Examing the Abrams Web site, one sees clear examples of the blurry line Fine identifies. The site claims that “Abrams Research can bring together top financial journalists to advise that business [financial services] on how to best convey its message.” To help a video game distributor, Abrams claims it “can reach out to the most influential industry bloggers and present an overview of their opinions on a particular marketing message.”

Rather than focus on the ethical dilemmas, which Fine outlines, I would rather think through the rise of the “Journo-Relations” industry and what it might mean for future communicators. I believe that we are already experiencing this blurring of lines between journalist and communicator via blogs and tweets. The long-range consequences are even more cloudy.

The notion of who a person represents and which “hat” they wear at a given time will take on greater importance as bloggers, tweeters, and others extend themselves across various platforms. For example, when am I a company-paid communicator or simply advocating for myself (the idea of “brand you“)? How do the lines blur when one posts a link to a company blog or product blog to a personal social media site, such as Facebook or LinkedIn?

Most public relations experts I have discussed this idea with agree that they do not want their hard news coming from “Journo-Relations” practitioners. They lament the decline of independent news organizations. Most journalists, obviously, feel the same way. The disappearance of newspapers and magazines puts them out of work.

The biggest problems I see as a result of the rise of “Journo-Relations” is that people, in general, are not trained in critical thinking to the degree necessary to distinguish between journalistic content and non-journalistic content, particularly if it is written and/or taped to look like journalism. We only need to look at the recent VNR problems and the challenge of “advertorials” to see how quickly paid fact becomes real fact.

Rather than think critically, most people are urged to find a single correct answer or fall back on their “gut” instinct (usually a conglomeration of ideas, indoctrinations, feelings, and emotions they carry). For example, many people look at poll results at face value, not questioning who paid for the content, the survey size, or methodology. Given the large stakes at hand in poll results, from voting to when and where a company decides to run an ad, one would expect that voters/consumers, etc. would use a more critical eye. My experience discussing these issues with hundreds of college students each year have proved otherwise.

From a “Journo-Relations” perspective, we face a future (and many would argue current state)  where there are few or no gatekeepers. In this environment, is anyone really willing to base what is or is not appropriate for one to write about on a person’s individual ethical code?

In the Abrams Research case, for example, who will draw the line between “compensated experts” and active journalists? In an increasingly decentralized media world, no central body exists to regulate journalists or communicators that choose to ignore traditional ethical lines.

The demand for content is not slowing, though the delivery channels are changing. Journalism and communications are adapting to this new reality. Will the public keep pace, or perhaps even more important, do they care?