Sunday, April 14, 2013

Community Managers: crucial future centipedes?


Since big companies have seen the importance of social network sites to promote their brands, it seems like there is a rising demand for community managers. Although this new kind of profession is still in full development and the description of this internet job is sometimes a bit vague, the job is surely indispensable according to some.


Some four or five years ago the job title emerged for the first time. But before that the leaders of community services of mainstream online computer services during the early 1990s such as CompuServe and Prodigy were often referred to as ‘community managers’.


So what do they do then? Quite a lot if you ask me. First of all, a community manager should create, organize, manage and control an online community of customers and clients. This broad definition can be understood differently depending on the size of the company, the endorsed use of the brand and the industry itself. It is evident that a government agency may adopt a different communication policy than a non-profit organization. Big companies may demand more competence from their community managers in everything from the social tools themselves to budgeting, marketing, project management, recruiting and more. On the other hand, community managers employed by smaller businesses typically tend to have a ‘smaller’ variety of obligations, such as overseeing Facebook and Twitter accounts, writing blog posts, creating videos, taking pictures, and playing webmaster if necessary.


Another task of the community manager is to escort and moderate web 2.0 relationships and conversations in favor of a brand. Web 2.0 refers to the development of the internet as an interactive medium in which users not only download but also start uploading. With Web 2.0, internet users determine the content that appears on the internet and so they increase the interactive nature of the web. This user-generated content is collected from social networking sites, such as weblogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds, web video and web services with open APIs. Examples of applications are YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, MySpace, Last.fm, Pandora, Wikipedia, Twitter, etc. They also track the conversations on these applications by tools as Sysomos, which uses content of social media sites to create a clear overview on how products, people, and brands are covered in those media sites and what their sentiment towards these conversations are.

As we deal with an emerging profession, it’s still difficult to tell what the ideal diploma is to become a community manager. Although there are many courses for this upcoming career, the most important thing is that community managers acquire a taste for new media and that they learn how to master it. Other useful skills are: being social in general, having expertise in technology and being experienced and competent in copywriting, HyperText Markup Language (html) and design.


Although when observed from the outside community managers may appear to be an influential and powerful group, they are usually hidden behind the scenes. There for, every fourth Monday of January the ‘Community Managers Appreciation Day’ takes place as a way to recognize the effort they put into their lives on a daily basis in order to make ours more convenient Community managers are usually put on the background but on this day they deserve to be in the spotlight, since they establish a brand’s desired image on the internet. It’s this one day a year they are being explicitly appreciated for their sometimes thankless job. Celebrating this day has become a global phenomenon, as events, conferences, cocktail parties etc. are being organized and even digital digital postcards are being published.

Even Uservoice has made several clever Community Manager Appreciation Day cards.

Yet, despite their admirable intentions, not all is rosy for community managers and they too have to deal with all kinds of struggles and challenges. The most obvious one is that customers will never stop having problems and global Internet has made it impossible not to ask questions or complain. Another difficulty is that the emotional impact of this type of job may lead to an emotional meltdown. Coping with tons of dissatisfied customers can work discouraging on long-term. Besides this, they also put their personal privacy at risk by exposing their real names in order to build up trust with the customers.



The question now rises whether community managing is really that important as it seems to become. Because of the tremendous value these companies get through the care of the company's image on the social networks, some say the profession of community manager will be found in every company over the long haul. This means specific training at colleges and universities will be given in the future. I personally think this might be the case, but one could ‘easily’ be a community manager without having followed specific courses. We’ve learned of our own how to use new media like PCs, e-mail and social networks. In my opinion, the practice of these new media became self-evident, and the same will happen to the use of social tools. At least, this may very well apply in small businesses. In this case, a specific course would be unnecessary. Big businesses, on the other hand, require focus on certain specific aspects of the job, making specific training programs quite useful. This once niche career field is now beginning to extend into specific areas of knowledge. But community management staffs are still very small and overworked.
We can conclude that with the upswing of the Internet everybody can express their opinion freely online and that is also what happens with brands. It is the community manager’s duty to make the link between consumers and the company by promoting online conversations about the brand among surfers. They help measure business goals, develop and expand the image and visibility of the brand on the internet and provide customers with real-time feedback. Community managing is much more than just playing on Facebook all day and even though it involves many challenges, there’s a bright future for this role.

Long live the community managers!






Neuromarketing: A Pound For Your Thoughts


Shut up and take my money!
– FRY, Philip J. in Futurama. “The Attack of the Killing App”, season 6.

We are exposed to more than 2 million TV ads throughout our lives. The same as watching 3.3 hours of ads everyday, seven days a week, for 10 years. To come out with these ads, companies spend billions of euros on marketing every year. Before launching a new product, everything is carefully planned and studied, having in consideration the consumers' opinion (“because we care about you”). Paradoxically, the truth is that between 80 and 90% of all products fail in the course of their first year in the market, which means that there's a difference between what we consumers say and what we actually do.



Interrogating Brains


If there's something for sure in life, it is that companies don't like to waste their money. They want each euro they spend to generate an optimal result. Imagine their frustration, dealing with very little motivated customers through endless questionnaires, trying to figure out the mechanisms of the purchasing process... in vain. Because we don't do what we say. And if you don't know what I mean, give Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann and her Spiral of Silence theory a try.

In the 50's, she developed a mass communication theory based on the importance of the dominant opinion. We humans, as social animals we are, are scared of isolation. When our opinion doesn't agree with the dominant opinion, we tend to not to speak up our minds because of our fear to be rejected by the others. It means that we all will die saying Internet Explorer sucks even if it's our default browser and we're absolutely in love with it (in a parallel world).

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann's Spiral of Silence

The simple fact of making a question conditions the answer. “Do you think the new iPhone is thinner, lighter, faster, sexier and more hipster than ever?”; “Hell yeah!”. Indeed, all traditional marketing methods (questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, etc.) are mediated by language. By the time companies figured this out, the echoes of something called neuromarketing started to fill the meeting rooms of their headquarters.

This new trend combines traditional marketing methods with neuroscience to bypass the personal interpretation of the consumer. It literally asks his brain directly. Using electroencephalograms, MagneticResonance Imaging (MRI) and all short of sensors, neuromarketing digs into our brains, analyzing their electromagnetic response in front of audiovisual stimulus. There's no place for subjective interpretations, it has free way to our subconscious reaction to ads, multimedia contents, viedogames, product packaging, etc.



The big question is, is it possible to read somehow a certain region of the brain and predict something? Is it possible to induce this or that emotion on the consumer's brain so that it will make him want to buy a product? Can THEY control us?

Taking decisions at the level of a crocodile? 


In the last years, neuromarketing companies have been supporting their programs on a neuroscience theory form the 70's: the TriuneBrain Theory. According to it, human beings have three brains. The reptilian brain, which we share with reptiles, is the most ancient, it's related to the survival instinct and controls the muscles, the equilibrium and the non-voluntary functions such as breathing or heart beating. The second one, the paleomammalian brain or limbic system is in charge of memory and emotions. The newest one, the neomammalian brain or neocortex, is related to the ability of language, abstract thinking and perception.

When watching a TV ad, neocortex would analize the story, the story would awake an emotion in the limbic system and the reptilian brain would ultimately take a decision. In other words, some neuromarketing companies believe that we decide at the level of a crocodile. And according to them, the reptilian brain is pretty much predictable.



It is true that we're highly irrational and emotions have a main role in the decision-making process. However, current neuroscience considers this theory as obsolete since that's not likely the way our brain evolved and those are not its functions in that regions. Probably it's easier to get clients trying to make them think that the decision-making process is extremely simple and primitive rather than admitting that we are still far away from understanding human brain. Marketing tricking marketing. Ironic, isn't it?

Brain Nudism


Luckily for us, neuromarketing is still far away from decoding our thoughts. However, neuroscientists hazard it might be possible in the future. There's a relation between some regions of activity of the brain and certain thoughts. Without going any further, researchs of the CarnegieMellon University in Pittsburgh show that it is possible for a machine to discriminate concrete nouns that a person is thinking depending on the brain activity observed thought MRI.

What will happen when other people have access to these results? Electroencephalogram and magnetic resonance were born with medical purposes, but nothing stopped marketing from using it with an economical aim. In their defense, they say that what they do is just measuring reactions, but isn't it more like manipulation? Manipulation is something inherent to marketing. It's main objective has always been making us buy things we don't really want to buy. Then could it be used to control consumers? It would be hypocrite to say that it doesn't work. Neuroscience has proven to be useful in other fields and so it is for marketing as well.

The use of such techniques has serious ethical implications. Till what extent will it be possible to know what we think or control what we feel? It's something important to have in consideration. Meanwhile, a pound for your thoughts.

Estefanía Armero Cabezas








Shitstorms

Another internet phenomen gets professionalized


A butterfly in one part of the earth can cause a storm at a completely other place. This can happen in the internet as well. How do we have to understand the term Shitstorm as a more and more important phenomenon?
In the last years the so called Shitstorm, which actually just means an „uncomfortable, chaotic situation“ in proper English, became popular in the German speaking internet world. It describes a massive chorus of outrage by internet users who are posting and writing in social media. Shitstorm was voted Anglicism of the year 2011 by a scientific jury in Germany.

This phenomenon is quite similar to one, which is known as Flamewar in the English-speaking world. Both are describing massive public outrage by internet users in social media like facebook and twitter, in forums and blogs. It can include serious criticism, but also quite unobjective, aggressive and irrelevant insults. The difference to a Flamewar is this one: A Shitstorm is rather focused on one specific aim like an institution, a company or just one person and based on norm violations and abuses. It starts and it ends pretty fast. Because the users who join the Shitstorm use social media so intensively, there is a nearly unpredictable snowball effect. Shitstorms can be a thread for the “victim” and cause serious damages to the image of the person, company or institution.
Shitstorms are seriously discussed in Germany. 
Which people do it for which goal? 
Does a Shitstorm rather promote or avoid serious discussions? 
How can it get controlled and managed? 
Which influence does a Shitstorm finally have on the participative and democratic culture?

The popular German blogger Sascha Lobo promoted the use of the term Shitstorm in April 2010, when he talked to an audience at the so called Web-2.0-conference „re:publica“ about the topic 
„How to survive a Shitstorm“. 
Lobo defines himself as a Digital Bohemé and his topics mostly deal with phenomenons in New Media. He is experienced in receiving Shitstorms as well.

  Nowadays it's quite obvious, that there are at least four groups taking a role in a Shitstorm, who are relevant to mention:
  • The victims, who are aims of the Storm.
  • The internet users, who have subjective interests to join the outrage.
  • Opinion leaders or organizations, which have higher interests. They especially want the media to pay attention.
  • Bloggers, popular websites, print media and TV. If they pay attention to a Shitstorm, the topic will get even larger. Media are the ones, who can lift the topic onto another level.

Shitstorms most times happen intendedly, because the users have to search and navigate for a special platform. This includes opinion leaders who request Shitstorms and try to convince other users. If the Shitstorms works in the end, is still a question of attention.
Especially NGO's like Greenpeace try to initiate and promote Shitstorms to get their interests spread. In comparison to the users, who they try to convince and even provocate, those organizations have clearly defined aims.
In 2010 Greenpeace started a campaign to inform about the production of KitKat, a product by the global operating swiss company Nestlé. Greenpeace complained about the fact, that Nestlé uses palm oil from Indonesia, wherefore huge parts of the living environment of Orang Utans get destroyed. A short Clip was part of the campaign. In the beginning the resonance for this clip was very low and disappointing. The Shitstorm by the support of Nestlé itself. The company tried to ban the clip. The reaction of the internet users was a huge shitstorms in social media and many channels. The public attention to the clip was even higher than Greenpeace expected. This reaction is quite similar to the so called Streisand effect.


  
The Swiss social media researchers Barbara Schwede and Daniel Graftried tried to develop a scale to measure Shitstorms. Here one can see six different steps of storms, beginnig at the lowest level one until the strongest level of six. At step one the reaction in social media and other media is very low, but it's rising at every step. The first non-internet media start to pay attention at step four, and at step six a huge Shitstorm is the most popular topic in the internet and also highly discussed and mentioned in every other media. The content and the level of offending and insulting does not necessarily change.



Does a Shitstorm help anyone?


As we can see, professionals already try to manipulate this part of public opinion by provocating Shitstorms on purpose. Several people can have highly interests to promote Shitstorms, because it became a News worth to mention itself. The goal in this case is, to make the public sphere paying attention to the outrage. The victims of the storm cannot be pleased by it for sure. And in addition, concerning to an interview of Sascha Lobo at the German TV-Channel 3Sat, there is a potential disadvantage: “The term of Shitstorm is highly problematic, because every serious criticism can get pointed out as senseless internet riot and insult. That's not only bad for the people who complain, but also for the victims, because if they don't take any of the mentioned criticism seriously, they can also not learn anything out of it.”

The participating internet user as a sovereign citizen has to learn to differ between simply insulting content and serious criticism. Otherwise the Shitstorms stay on a level of appearing as a wave of outrage and nothing else. Furthermore, the internet culture shouldn't be manipulated so much be the professional aims of organizations and companies, who need and use the emotions of the internet user crowd. If the brave, new world of internet democracy and participation appears like this, it has nearly no worth.


But for those who want to start a Shitstorm, there are some advices how to to it:

      1. choose who to blame or which reason.
      2. use video clips or at least images, which are easy to post and share.
      3. start the storm together and use as much channels as possible.
      4. mobilize people in E-Mail-Newsletters.
      5. Start the storm at the weekend, because most companies don't work.
      6. Use Twitter, because it's open and full of Internet geeks.
      7. Stay in contact with professional media.
      8. Wait for mistakes of the victim and use them as a penalty.
      9. Make screen shots and be patient.
      10. The rest is just a matter of luck

Julian Kasten

References: 



Slow journalism to the rescue?

Finland has been traditionally a country with very strong newspaper readership. According to Statistics Finland, Finns are ranked number one in newspaper readership in European Union and number three in the world, behind Norway and Japan. Number of local newspapers is unusually high in Finland, compared to most of the world.

However, for the last decade, the newspaper circulation has been in harsh decline. Total circulation reached it's high point in 1989, after which the circulation stopped growing. In the time period 2001-2011, the total circulation in has decreased 1-2 percent a year, making up total of 19 percent decrease The advertising revenue numbers tell a similar tale. At the same time, all the big publishing houses have axed significant amounts of employees. If these trends are to continue, it begs the question: does newspaper have a future? It seems that the traditional business model of newspapers is breaking down. Usually the blaming eye turns to the internet. People don't seem to have the need to pay for news when the web is already full of them.

Internet also offers many possibilities but online journalism is still at it's infancy. It has not been able to turn the direction of newspaper's downhill slide. Online journalism is not associated with slowness, quite the opposite actually. However, in January of 2013, several well-establised Finnish journalists launched online service called LongPlay. According to the founders of the service, LongPlay's purpose is to offer an alternative to the mainstream online journalism, which they consider very hasty and shallow. In the LongPlay website, only one piece of journalism is published in a month.

The stories costs 3-6 euros or you can became support member of LongPlay by paying atleast 54 euros and get all the stories. The articles are large pieces of investigative journalism and narrative storytelling, usually about five times longer than the longest articles published in newspapers. The stories are available on Apple iBookstore and several Finnish online reading applications. So far three articles have been published and one of them has caused a big stir. The second LongPlay article was story about government-financed ”future report” by philosopher Pekka Himanen. Himanen and his research group were paid 700 000 euros to produce report about future of Finnish values and society. The article launched a hot debate about public spending and also calls for official investigation of the financing decision.

LongPlay is the first online servide of it's kind in Finland. Similar journalism experiments are taking place mainly in the US. The editor-in-chief also cites ProPublica and Slate as inspirations. LongPlay articles take advantage of the fact that internet offers possibility not only for real-time news but also for much deeper coverage. The founders of LongPlay believe the latter possibility is often neglected. They describe their approach as 'slow journalism'. The usual online stories are read in maybe few seconds but LongPlay stories are not necessarily meant to be read in one sitting but to take in with time.

LongPlay has been received pretty enthusiastically, atleast among journalists and other media people. LongPlay is not intented to make big profits as it's not the main source of employment for any of it's writers, however it is an interesting experiment which will tell us something about the livability of slow journalism. The second LongPlay article, the story of about the Finnish future project, sold 4000 e-copies which translates into revenue of 15 000 euros. Maybe the way to turn internet journalism profitable is not to produce more and faster but more demanding and better-researched content.


LongPlay website (only in Finnish): http://longplay.fi/

Tuomas Koukkunen 

The Internet and New Media: a Revolutionary tool?


On the 8th of April 2012  a post was published here which can be summarised with one sentence: […] nowadays New Social Medias play an essential role in the development of revolutions.”
I highly disagree with this view and in the following I would like to make clear why the Internet and Social Media are not (and probably won’t be in the near future) the essential or decisive element in revolutions. The main reason for this is fourfold:

Meaningful symbolism?


1.The Internet is not genuinely democratic!


Cyber-Utopians – as Evgeny Morozov would label them – claim so, however it isn’t. Just as every medium the Internet is a transmission channel, which transfers data from people to other people. This means that it is dependent on its users and its regional and timely context. The indented and the actual uses are not equal. For example although radio played a role liberating former soviet countries, it also played a great role in the Rwandan Genocide promoting hatred and violence. One has to consider that no matter how bad (from a Western point of view) authoritarian rulers are: they always have their supporters. And so although there are examples of the Internet being used to help a revolution or a democratic movement, there are also many examples of the opposite.
In Saudi Arabia for example Internet users are encouraged to search youtube for videos which offend Saudi sensibilities. There was a similar effort in Thailand, brought to live by an MP. At Protecttheking.th users could post links of sites that offended the king and then these sites were blocked. Another example is Iran where the government put photos of protesters online so that citizens who are loyal to the regime can identify them. They basically crowd-sourced the process of putting down a rebellion. In the Arab spring many protesters used Twitter to organise their protest which seemed to work swiftly and effective. However Twitter is a public platform so by organising a Revolution via twitter you are providing your regime with information which they had to torture to gain a decade ago.

The best proof that the Internet is not genuinely democratic is that authoritarian regimes do not fear new media per se. They allow debates about non-political or non-democratic issues like climate change or corruption. They get information what bothers the people they suppress. Therefore by allowing discussion, pretending to listen to the people and sometimes acting, regimes get legitimacy. And if they fear certain websites or initiatives they still can censor the Internet. Most of the time will won’t bother that much because:

2. The Internet is about entertainment not about politics!


People always filter their content and thereby personalize their Internet usage to a degree that they only see what they want to see. Most of the time that’s not political content but tv-series and sports, messages from their family and friends, the newest party-pictures or porn. The Internet is distracting people and confronts them with the familiar. Though “unanticipated encounters involving topics and points of view that people have not sought out and perhaps find irritating, are central to democracy and even to freedom itself” as Cass Sunstein wrote
After all we also have to learn from Western Social Media experience. From the 1990s on a lot of people in democracies were highly optimistic about the (direct-)democratic possibilities the internet has to offer. Some imagined a world where everybody was part of the political decision-making process online. What’s left now is mostly resignation. People don’t get involved. There may be more cyber activism in autocracies, however even there most people will use the internet to send harmless mails, watch harmless movies or read harmless thoughts.

Preferences


3. Social Media are not that popular!


At least they are not for a majority of the people in autocracies, due to the countries these autocracies are based in often being less technologically advanced. The number of twitter activists is small, no matter if we are talking about Iran or Moldova. A lot of the Revolutionary supporters on twitter are feel-good-activists from the democratic West. Furthermore most of the supporters in the concerned countries are young, modern, tech-savvy and support Western values. This can lead to a wrong picture of an uprising as it has happened in the Arab spring. In the period of the uprising in Egypt Western Media were highly optimistic that once Mubarak is gone, there will be a western style democracy to replace it. What happened: the people of Egypt chased an anachronistic Western style autocrat out of Heliopolis palace only to vote an Islamic autocrat into office. The Social Media activity of young, modern people created the vision that they and their views of life represent the majority in their country. However once Mubarak was overthrown you can see the deep borders, which divide the protesters from the start.
So who wants to get a false impression will get a false impression and that’s what happens in the Western World. The media loves stories about social media revolution. They are modern and thrilling. Beside the wrong estimation of the usage of Social Media, this view disregards also social and cultural factors and is build on a deterministic picture of technology and media. But having an iPod doesn’t make you a supporter of democratic values.

4. Social Media activism is not binding!


Democratic movements and uprisings demand a great deal of their supporters. It is dangerous, very often even life-threatening to participate. So what are possible reasons to get involved? The idea that just some Social Media posts from strangers will let you protest on the street is naïve. The decisive element was and will be personal tiers with other protesters
And your best friends can write you a text message with their mobile phone as well or can just come around. Mouth-to-mouth-propaganda will play an important role for every coming uprising. Especially when regimes start working on their Internet spying it’s the safest way. 

The Tahrir Square after Mubarak resigned 2011

Conclusion


Social Media and the Internet can in some cases be a helpful instrument to bring down regimes; but so can machine guns. And as the latter Social Media and the Internet can be used against protesters. So the outcome of a revolution depends more on the potency or impotence of the regime and the amount and the will of protesters than on the use of Social Media.
In the Western world we have a wrong image of the on-goings in autocracies because we are fond of the idea that our new media technology will change the world to better.
The point is: Wherever you will find a new media revolution you will find a new media counter-revolution. Thanks to thinkers like Morozov this idea is spreading in the World. In relation to that even some of the most famous supporters of the revolutionary effects of New Media already changed or weakened their opinion.

Future belongs to media weddings



Nowadays media is a tool which inevitably exists among us and the world. The expanding world of media in the future will connect to the web of information. Probably everybody could agree with the idea that media as a myth – a challenge for today. Paul Klee’s painting “Angelus Novus” was used as the interpretation of W. Banjamin who saw history as progress. What does it mean? It means that all forms of media are engaged and will be used together. 
 
Media fragmentation in the 40’s started with considerably more radio, newspapers, magazines, cinema, theatre and posters. It’s now common knowledge that in the 60’s (the nation’s first televised debates: Kennedy vs Nixon) television took an exclusive role in user generated media. During these years society began to get more news from the television than the newspaper. However, over the years it’s begun to take on a less important role due to the fact that new types of media such as smartphone, HDTV, Blue Ray, iTunes, Podcasting, Blogging and Youtube started to appear. Does it mean that TV can be replaced by the Internet? It means that the two are engaged together. We can say that a conceptual and digital age consists of phases of communication (orality, manuscripts, print, electronic) and convergence. Nowadays the digital age has mobile phones with cameras, watches with calculators, iPhones, radio with Internet, print design with web design and so on. The convergence of these media forms affects not just communication, but our behavior as well. 


Television as a tool for mass communication



13 days more and Lithuania will celebrate the first translated program in Lithuanian television history. It was on the 27th of April (1957). Quite late when compared with other European countries (the first experimental direct broadcasts were in 1929 in the United Kingdom and Germany). However, today Lithuania may still justifiably be called a country of TV lovers. People are used to watching TV in order to get news and to be entertained. This medium between society and news or entertainment has a big influence on even our daily routines - people are now even used to co-ordinating their daily plans in order to see a certain TV program. Also it has altered our world through mass communication by presuming it manipulated and still manipulates our thinking and behavior. 
“Television is a medium which permits millions of people to listen to the same joke at the same time and yet remain lonesome” (T.S. Elliot).
Technology attracts not only the attention, but it indirectly leads society along the way it wants to. The best example to base this idea may be a documentary film called “Czech Dream” (2004), directed by young Czech directors Vít Klusák and Filip Remunda. The film is about a mass communication experiment where a new supermarket called “Czech Dream” is advertised, but transpires to be a hoax. The aim of this experiment was to demonstrate how strongly media affects society. Nearly 3000 thousand came to see a fake supermarket.

However, even in this example television was not the only media for mass communications. Nowadays media is in a process of convergence. 

Losses of TV viewers recognized the importance of technology


There are more and more TV viewing options. En excellent example is Apple’s iTunes which people like because it is easy to use. However TV still has strong content and this is what people need. TV content, formally a one-directional visual communication, has today evolved into a two-way communication and plays an important role in the digital area. TV has the potential to grow further, but not singly. It is developing with a convergence of other media. TV interactivity is growing via social networks (Twitter, Facebook, ect.) because people like to share what kind of television programs they are watching. TV as an information tool will spread even more, the only question is: what will it be called? This is the result of convergence. It is likely, that the mobile devices role will increase significantly in television viewing. The usual television screens will be replaced by tablet (iPad) screens. Direct television broadcasting will be monitored both: on television screens and through mobile phones. From that point of view people will be able to get more information and share it with others etc.

Over the past 5-10 years, television has changed into something previously unrecognizable. In February of this year Lithuanian National Radio and Television (LRT) followed in the footsteps of Britain’s BBC – becoming a single facility incorporating connected television, radio and an Internet portal, for their audience suggested content-related programs designated for smart devices, created their own video-sharing portal in “Youtube”, started to use a supercomputer, work with students and create an interactive television. Now they have a redesigned site where radio and television is on the Internet. According to research data, about 70% of portal visitors are going directly to this mediatheque. LRT actively enforce their cross-promotion – in each of three LRT channels they are advertising each other. Although one hour of HD video comes in at about 20-25 GB, it is still possible to prepare ten times smaller files because LRT is using supercomputer. 
The increasing consolidation of information increase the need for media research in order to explore innovative ways of interacting with consumer needs and habits in a digital space. By using special programs it’s now even possible to determine exactly in which media channel users watched a video or listened to music. One of the ways is “Virtual Meter,” a tool which helps to observe and calculate the audience of electronic media. Media audience measurement is very important and is a significant tool for media development which affects a convergence a lot. It supplies a list of conceivable assumptions concerning how to reach their goals of media convergence and not to lose media audience interests. According to Lithuanian Market and Media Research Company TNS LT data, in 2012 the average Lithuanian watched 3 hours and 36 minutes of Television each day. This metric grows annually, indicating Lithuanians still prefer television. But it doesn’t mean that the Internet usage has a low level. According to Lithuanian Information Society Development Committee under the Ministry of Transport and Communications (ISDC), the usage of the Internet is growing each year as well. Comparing the last two years, the percentage of Internet usage from 2011 to 2012 grew by 7 points. In recent years, the growth of these indicators has lead to the increasingly elderly population becoming interested in information technologies and their possibilities. Right now 70% of Lithuanians are using the Internet. However, the ranking shows that Lithuanians still prefer to use computer more instead of the Internet. Each percentage of the Internet usage is approximately 2% less than the usage of computers. In general, the usage of the Internet in Lithuania is quite behind the average of the general European usage.  
As a result the Internet has changed the television despite the fact that all values of the content became less loyalty. The biggest advantage here is the increasing amount of consumers. Furthermore, you will not require a TV to watch TV and that is why television doesn’t have a capital letter whereas the Internet does.