Interesting stuff, as ever, at the Pew Internet & American Life Project web site. This time, on the contrary evidence to our common assumptions about new technologies. While many take it as a given that new technologies distract us from real-world social interaction, and encourage our cocooning into digitally-connected isolation, recent survey data suggests otherwise. Says the summary:
People’s use of the mobile phone and the internet is associated with
larger and more diverse discussion networks. And, when we examine
people’s full personal network — their strong and weak ties — internet
use in general, and use of social networking services such as Facebook
in particular, are associated with more diverse social networks.
Of particular relevance to place-based arts organizations, the survey also found that Internet and mobile phone users were actually more likely to visit public or semi-public spaces than their non-connected counterparts. Specifically:
- Compared to those who do not use the internet, internet users are
42% more likely to visit a public park or plaza and 45% more likely to
visit a coffee shop or café.- Bloggers are 61% more likely to visit a public park than internet
users who do not maintain a blog, or about 2.3 times more likely than
non-internet users.
Basic economics defines goods and services as either complements or substitutes — complements are purchased and consumed together (as demand for one goes up, the demand for the other does too), substitutes are goods or services that can be used in place of one another (if the price or availability of one becomes a burden, you can switch to the other). As a provider of goods or services, it’s a large part of your job to understand which one of these you offer.
All of which begs the conversations in the lively arts that on-line media and social networking is a substitute for what we do, and should be feared. If it’s a complement, we should be feeding the fire.
Andrew, I think that the idea of digital being a threat to the live is less an assumption and more a fear of a particular generation, which is being played out across all aspects of society at the moment…and it just happens to be that most of our arts managers are of that generation.
So the data you helpfully point to is useful in that it just backs up what the more digitally active already know – that to define online and “real life” as complementary is an artificial duality and that it’s all supplementary as you say. Some nice recent data from the UK’s National Theatre on this here.
And my particular favourite example in general is Twestival – the phenomenonal global series of events that uses Twitter to flock meetups which raise large amounts for amazing charities. It is the perfect example of supplementarity and it shows the way for all of us.
Great find, Andrew! This is really important stuff. If we decide that our business model is to compete with the internet for attention then we’re dead in the water.
Part of the problem is when people think of the internet (or Facebook, etc.) as “things” or even “products” in any conventional sense. They’re not nouns, they’re verbs. The objects of those verbs are what’s important, and those are friends, family, colleagues, etc. We’re not going to defeat *them*, and it would be absurd to try.
Thanks for sharing this report. I’m often in these arguments with folks and find I have to grin and bear my frustration.
I just gave a talk for museum folks about technology and ended by talking about maker culture. Several older people came up to me surprised to hear that young people are not just using technology to isolate themselves but to plan meetups and knitting circles and the like. I’d love to see some cross-generational discussions about simple questions like “What do you do with your phone?” or “How do you use Facebook?” What may be isolating for one group may foster social connection for another.
Great report, great data, great post and great comments. My shock is that you are talking to such people that you feel you have to write: “All of which begs the conversations in the lively arts that on-line media and social networking is a substitute for what we do, and should be feared. If it’s a complement, we should be feeding the fire.” If anyone in a position of authority in the arts is still debating this, they should get a new job. Sorry to be harsh, but this (study) isn’t anything new, just more justification for the reality that, as with other media, it is a god-send if used correctly. It’s death, perhaps, to those who don’t, but any arts admin who doesn’t know that a more engaged (with the world) audience is a good thing has obviously “left the building.”
I think the conversation that needs to take place among arts organizations isn’t “how will digital impact live?” Instead, I think the conversation needs to be more fundamental – “Does our organization have the tools and resources to properly assess digital opportunities?” In most cases, the answer is no. In mid-sized and smaller organizations, digital and social media falls under the auspices of the most junior employees, or even an intern, who simply have too many obstacles that they need to overcome in order to make any progress at all. Arts organizations need to evaluate their internal decision making processes, and fill the gaps where need be.
Interesting data/ Can someone cite the reference? Thanks.
Pixie…the reference is the first web link in the post:
http://bit.ly/9pfkhE
If you scroll to the bottom of that page, you’ll find a PDF file of the full report with all methodology and references.
Thanks for highlighting, Andrew. Although I have always taken social media as a complement to offline, these numbers go a little further.
I’m particularly interested in the fact that, for example, “bloggers are 61% more likely to visit a public park than internet users who do not maintain a blog, or about 2.3 times more likely than non-internet users.”
I’d be curious to know if this also applies to attending or participating in art.
If so, that would be welcome information for arts marketers. Already there is a shift toward behavioral targeting in marketing, and if research suggests that bloggers and social media users attend art more frequently, than you have just opened up all kinds of new possibilities.
Now, of course, as long as these arts marketers don’t use old media tricks on new media consumers… this behavioral targeting only works if you speak the right language.
If arts participation really does turn out higher for bloggers and social media users, there is all the more reason to start engaging this group on their turf and start reaping the benefits of that relationship.
The Internet and technology bring about both positive and negative effects. Many organizations keep people updated through social media. Social media can encourage people to visit something, but it has to be able to reach new and different people to be effective.
In Marc’s comment, he brings up a good point that arts organizations need to make sure they have everything needed to access and properly use digital resources. I think it would be interesting to see the results arts organization would have if digital resources were used properly and to the fullest extent possible.
Currently, online media and social networking are both complementary and substitutive to the arts. While awareness, connection and education soar, thanks to technological advances, the here-and-now attitude toward creating and furthering art diminishes. Ideally, new technology will not be substituted for more traditional ways of learning about and creating art. However, it isn’t likely that online media and social networking will be purely complementary to existing attitudes toward art, either. It seems most likely that we will encounter in the future a hybrid of the two: a reciprocal, omnipresent artistic community, where we can create art at anytime, while simultaneously sharing it with the rest of the world.
The question of whether or not being engrossed in social networking and the internet is complementary to the art organization seems to have been answered by the data given. It is apparent that those who are more involved in blogging and networking are doing this so it will manifest in the real world. They feel the need to participate with each other and the community, and this includes arts organizations. Arts organizations can extend their influence and attract new people by meeting them in the matrix of digital communication. This can be intimidation for non-digital generation people because they are uncomfortable in this medium. By making social networking and communication a higher priority on their list and by getting people who are committed and familiar with the digital environment, art organizations will surely be able to reap the benefits of new generations craving interaction and participation. this doesn’t mean that they will be interested in what you have to offer though, the arts organization must cater to the wants and needs of the digital generation to gain these potential patrons.
This is a great post, Andrew, and I echo the sentiments of a number of the above respondents. This isn’t really new news, but it is interesting news, and it’s interesting how people embrace social media to complement real-world interaction. This is the part that wasn’t new or surprising to me– what was however, was how the data shows internet/ social media/ blog use impacts the frequency and type of public forays. Great topic for discussion!