Much like Dell on the day it launched its first corporate blog to a cacophony of the 'righeous', Skittles faced off against the wrath of the (m)asses and (barely) endured. Trent Reznor, on the other hand, is calling it quits. And can you blame him?

I will be tuning out of the social networking sites because at the end of the day it's now doing more harm than good in the bigger picture and the experiment seems to have yielded a result. Idiots rule.

Without question, the social web is a toxic place - often filled with vitriol and hate and the desire of a vocal few to knee-cap anything and anyone attempting to elevate the conversation (or at least keep it civil). And it's often why marketers are afraid to play in this space. Which would be wrong. As wrong as it is to attempt to jump in with no understanding of the "rules" and "customs" of the communities they are seeking to target and engage.  

In the social web, it's not only the brands that need to be thick-skinned, it's the people behind the brands, or those that represent them. Are they prepared for what they might face? And are rules in place to ensure they know how to respond - whether to silence the attacks that are flung at them without merit, to walk away, or - and dare it be said - to fight back.

So according to a recent Ipsos Reid study, "ONLY" about one out of every 100 Canadians is using Twitter (which apparently translates to "ONLY" 1.45 per cent of the Internet population in Canada). Is it ONLY me, or am I reading too heavily into the implied message here?  

Granted, my Cannes colleague Niall recently blogged about several other studies that likewise attempted to give pause to the echo-chamber / media hype. Methinks I see a trend emerging.

The Globe's conclusion? "... the rest of Canada hasn't exactly warmed to Twitter just yet ... It's certainly no Facebook". Of course, if the measure of a technology's influence was based solely on reach or 'popularity' - the 'perspectives' being provided might, in fact, be useful. However, when it comes to Twitter (and many other social networking tools), reach and popularity are often far less important than other characteristics of the micro-blogging tool - namely (and for the sake of brevity let's make up some words shall we?): content amplificability, micro-nichification, organizational humanification, and - erm - competitive intelligence gathering... all elements that when combined with its immediacy, its capacity to enable multiple-party dialog, and its growing search potential, forces us to view 'perspectives' such as those presented in the article through slightly more contextualized lenses - about how it's used and why, and the value that is derived based on the right mix of understanding where it fits within the communications mix, who is being targeted, with what content and by whom, and expectations on benefits - be they personal or business-related.

Thankfully, Mr. Laver (the report's author) concludes his study with some concessions to the business or corporate value of Twitter, if only to validate the current hype. However, what the study fails to show is that Twitter (and most social media) is often much more than a numbers game.

Would Shakespeare feel comfortable at the Cannes Lions? Surely yes.

He would certainly understand the overall context of stress (Great Recession v Tudor England) and, having struggled to pay the rent,  the problem of trying to put a premium on creativity while commercial pressures rise. He would appreciate the changing balance of power in content distribution - having seen the transformation of  traditional street plays to mass theatre in his own lifetime. And no doubt, as a close ‘student' himself  of Italian sources to provide the themes for so many plays, he would approach Cannes with the same magpie intent that we all will.

Surely too, he would be amazed at and celebrate the power that individual creative talent now has - not just to publish (Caxton did that some time back) but, entirely without patrons, to reach an audience ...peer-to-peer, to group, to the Globe.