Feb
2011
Web Curios
I’m not as angry as I was last week. This is all relative, of course; I am still full of (entirely justified) rage at the industry in which I work; the sort of impotent rage that will achieve nothing other than slightly raised blood pressure and the heightened probability of an aneurysm before the age of 50. This week the rage has been mostly caused by people’s seemingly unthinking insistence on using the words ‘influencer’ (NB – note to readers: If you are ever being presented to and someone uses that image in a presentation, you have EVERY RIGHT to spit in their face and call them a clueless shyster. No really, you do) and ‘engagement’ in completely arbitrary fashion. CAN YOU DEFINE THE TERMS YOU ARE USING? OH NO, THAT’S RIGHT, YOU CAN’T, BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST THROWING THEM INTO YOUR SENTENCES LIKE THE BUZZWORDS DU JOUR THAT THEY FUNDAMENTALLY ARE.
*Ahem*
Look, I know that there’s nothing wrong with the words ‘influencer’ and ‘engagement’ per se; I just get really, really upset when they are used so casually. If you can’t define what an ‘influencer’ is with any degree of credibility (and here’s the rub – in terms of the online world people really struggle, which is why Klout and Tweetlevel are ultimately pointless, masturbatory exercises (at the moment, at least)), then don’t use the term; if by ‘engagement’ you mean ‘talking to people’ then just say ‘talking to people’ and bask in the knowledge that people won’t think you’re anywhere near as much of a social media tool.
Christ alive, I was calm before I started writing this and now I am all het up and unnecessary. I am going to take a moment to attain the state of zenlike calm that I normally bask in when writing Web Curios – join me in contemplation of this beautiful image, and we’ll continue after the jump.
Fill in the blanks yourself. It doesn't get any less disturbing.
