Friday 6 September 2013

ISSUE 5—Heroes or hoverers? A place for all in online communities

The lead up to the Australian general election on 7 September has seen frenzied social media activity by major political leaders. Both  main contenders for the leadership, Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbot, through their active social media presence have acknowledged the importance of social media for community engagement.

Who has been more successful? Kevin Rudd, with his longer term social media presence, has attracted more followers. Sustained presence and interaction are important for building and maintaining a community of followers. The Sydney Morning Herald explores this issue at  http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/smallbiz-marketing/election-showcases-power-of-social-media-20130815-2rxkn.html#ixzz2eAnNfxbV

In the US, President Obama’s success with his social media campaign is seen as a function of with his long—3.5 year—social media presence in contrast with candidate Romney's much shorter one.  

The politicians are all demonstrating active leadership on online communities. But what of the other end of the scale–the not visibly active, seemingly dormant ‘lurkers’ referred to in this blog by commenter Rox?

Can we count those peripheral participants as part of the community?

Communication experts agree that lurkers are important. According to Kate Crawford of the University of Sydney, lurkers ‘contribute a mode of receptiveness that encourages others to make public contributions’.

It’s clear from the work of both Crawford and Australia’s Listening Project that, like real-world communities, online communities have their active leaders and their inactive, peripheral participants. All play significant roles.

Here is a multimedia metaphor for the interaction between online followers and online leaders—a large-group rendition of the Cup Song. (Don’t know about the Cup Song? This is a viral YouTube-activity that was unleashed with the release of the movie Pitch Perfect.)

This rendition highlights the importance of the leader for keeping a community together–the leader sets the rhythm for interaction, maintains the momentum, and creates a platform for powerful collaboration. But without her followers, there would only be silence.

Want to know more?

See Kate Crawford’s  article,  ‘ Disciplines of listening in social media’ at


For The Listening Project: http://www.thelisteningproject.net/

23 comments:

  1. there are always people in communities who are dormant - don't do a thing. Your latnet public How can you count your dormant people online if they don't even click onto your site? Fay

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting observation, I agree that lurkers are important. In a lot of way, interaction on social media is like a giant iceberg, you see a lot of chatter on the top, but the majority of followers are content to listen to the action and act on their own opinions in their own way and time. The fact that anyone with a social media account follows a political leader does not mean that the same person will be actively campaigning for that politician. The public wants to be informed, and listening is one way to be part of the action.

    As for couting dormant followers, the rough way to do so is by number of followers. Even if they don't click or interact, they have effectively "opted in" to listen to you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I lurked! Andrew :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I lurked too. Jon

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, lurking is like reading a book you choose to read, you enjoy the content, but don't necessarily feel the need to add any comment. A lurker aka Viv

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thinking(fast and slow)10 September 2013 at 20:15

    I lurked!There are lurkers everywhere, in all walks of life, throughout all history.We lurk as babies- seeing an adult world and not understanding it. We gain attention by crying out and then must choose the rest of our lives whether we seek attention or not. Should we join Toastmasters?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I lurked! - Naomi

    ReplyDelete
  8. I lurked - Tamara

    ReplyDelete
  9. I lurked! - Alisa

    ReplyDelete
  10. I lurked - Eliza.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I lurked! - Jodie

    ReplyDelete
  12. After the recent Prime Ministerial election in Australia, I was disucssing with someone about how the Twitterverse had gone crazy with love/hate sentiments of the two candidates before, during and after the election. And even still now.
    It occurred to me that this is actually an inaugural event for us in Australia as Twitter did not exist when the last Coalition PM was elected in 1996, nor when Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007. Even in the last election in 2010, Twitter was not as prevalent as it is now.
    The world is changing and politicians and celebrities alike need to utilise social media to keep ahead of the game, or indeed in the game at all.
    The TV coverage on election night was even showing recent tweets by the candidates with topics like who was first to congratulate whom and who is saying what about someone else.
    It's a new world full of tweets!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nope, I've never lurked - and I find people who're FB friends but who never interact with me directly (lurkers?) a bit scary. In fact, I've been slowly 'unfriending' FB friends who never interact with me. But then again, I have a love/hate relationship with the social media (and that's a very long story ...).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lurking is the basic response to most media - even for messages delivered face to face. We watch TV, read the paper, attend a meeting, read a billboard...or read a blog.

    Most times we read. Very rarely do we write a letter to the editor, ring up the radio station or leave a comment in a blog. Perhaps we expect too much. We think "Because I am publishing, I deserve, no am due a response"

    Me thinks engagement must be the precursor to a response.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sometimes, I lurk. Sometimes, I don't. Depends on the post or the subject and tone it might have been written in, my mood, the free time I have, whether or not I deem it worth to engage, and more often than not how the last dialogue with the poster (and his faithful followers) might have gone.

    I think sometimes we should be given the option to push a button or tick a square to say, 'yes, I've read you but sorry, got nothing to say about it'.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That's a great point about the presence of lurkers who are quietly absorbing or at least observing the messages we, as professional communicators, are putting out there. But then again, as professional communicators, we need metrics, measurements, observable and quantifiable effects that we can confidently attribute to our efforts, because that's what management demands. Hence, it's not surprising that lurkers and their possible influence have tended to be overlooked in favour of active users who comment on, like or share content - because activity is measurable evidence of the effect of our communications, whereas inactivity isn't!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks to all active lurkers, some of whom were brave enough to take the giant step of entering a blog for the first time. I invite you back again. A blog offers an anonymous space to share your views, be linked with other like minded people, and find information. See my 15 October post - a blog can even be the place where the righting of a social ill begins. Take advantage of this stepping stone to a like minded set of community members!

    ReplyDelete