I'm unfriending you

Everyone always says, “If you don’t like something a person says on Twitter/Facebook, just unfollow/unfriend them.” I’ve also found it to be common for people to put “if you don’t like this, get off my page/status” at the end of their posts on social media. Okay, I’ll unfollow them, but what am I supposed to say when they ask me (most of the time in an awkward face-to-face conversation) why I did that? We talked a little about this in class, and I picked up on two major arguments. “I unfollow them because they document the major happenings in their lives (that I don't care about),” Kristin suggested. Marriages and babies seem to be the most common happenings that appear on my social media feeds. On the other hand, “we’ll all do the same thing one day,” Gaitry said. So, what’s the right answer?

Better yet, instead of finding the right answer, we should create a formula that tells us who to delete and lets those who we unfriend/unfollow know what happened. There may not be a formula, but according to this article from The Guardian, it is an art, and it involves recognizing people as “clutter.”

“There are Facebook friends with whom you want to share everything, those you've grown apart from, and those you've barely heard of. (You can assign them to different lists, but then you've introduced a whole new layer of decisions: who belongs where? What qualifies someone to be switched from one list to another? And so on.) There are Twitter followers with whom your acquaintance is strictly professional, those you know from school, but didn't necessarily like, and those who are your dad. Not long ago, I realised, with a feeling of dismay, that I'd started to think of some of these contacts – not most of them, but some – as clutter.”

The author later includes advice about decluttering your social media feeds, and it’s a pretty bold move.

“Mullany recommends a friend-decluttering exercise that she admits sounds ‘weird’, but that she predicts will become more and more widely accepted. She advises making a public proclamation on Facebook in which you specify the criteria by which you'll henceforth be defining people as ‘friends’. Maybe you'll resolve only to remain Facebook friends with people you've met at least once in real life, or maybe you'll use a stricter standard, such as whether you'd invite that person to your wedding. Explain, in the same proclamation, that the consequent defriending shouldn't be taken personally, and that you're doing it to a number of people at once. Then start clearing out the clutter.”

Oh, and one more thing. You can always use the criteria set forth in this list to determine if your Facebook friends will make the cut. Honestly, this is the list I’ve been searching for. So, before you ask me why I unfollowed you on Twitter or defriended you on Facebook, check to see if you did something in this article.

“Increasingly, Mullany argues, social media will force us to evaluate our friendships in this way – to take stock of our connections, so as to reserve our energies for those who matter most. She equates this to drawing up the guest list for a wedding: ‘It's stressful but, for many people, making that list is a really important, meaningful moment.’”

Unfortunately, even if I unfollow you on Twitter, I’ll probably still have to invite you to my wedding.

P.S. I encourage everyone to read the two articles I linked to above. The first is interesting and informational, and the second is hilariously accurate. 

This is wholesome

Last month, Honey Maid started a campaign called “This is Wholesome,” featuring families of all types in a short advertisement. The 31-second clip was uploaded to the company’s YouTube and Facebook pages and showed a multitude of non-traditional families, including single fathers, a gay couple and a multiracial couple, with the taglines, “no matter how things change, what makes us wholesome never will” and “everyday wholesome snacks for every wholesome family."

“Because change happens in improbable ways, we now have Teddy Grahams embodying the struggle for basic human rights,” one blogger joked.

The video seemed to come onto the scene rather quietly, compared to Coca-Cola’s 2014 Super Bowl ad. Most of the comments were positive and the campaign was deemed a success. Unfortunately, as the commercial became more popular, the more backlash it sparked. Negative comments poured in on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, likely from some of the same users who had a problem with Coke’s diversity ad. However, the ad gained the most notoriety after the official response video was posted (see below).

As many negative comments as there were, there were thousands more positive comments. Most sites that covered the story supported Honey Maid and the views expressed in the video. In fact, I found the video under the headline, “Honey Maid's Brilliant 'F*ck You' To Mean Commenters.” Not only was the video an excellent response to the critics, but it paved the way for other major companies to announce their support for the “This is Wholesome” campaign and the views behind it.

By posting the video on social media, the company received immediate feedback. They then used the negative comments to produce an advertisement far exceeding the goals of the first. Although it may not have been their goal, the campaign garnered more support from the response video than the original commercial. That’s what I call excellent marketing (and a brilliant use of social media).

The future of online education

Last summer, I took two online courses, HIST 128 and POLI 101, through UNC’s Friday Center. The journalism major requires both classes and some of my friends suggested taking them online in order to avoid the additional recitations in the fall and spring courses. I registered for the courses, paid the fee and began my 12-week classes at the end of May. By the end of June, I was almost positive I wasn’t going to pass.

I quickly found out online courses weren’t for me. It was summer, I was busy searching for internships and I struggled to find the motivation to complete the required assignments. It felt like busy work, and the reading was boring. Of course, the trouble I had with these courses could be partially attributed to the content (I already know everything there is to know about the Civil War). When I ran across this article discussing the effectiveness of MOOCs, or massive open online courses, I immediately related to the author’s story.

Her experience was a little different than mine; my online classes were offered through the university and affected my GPA at UNC, whereas she was enrolled in an Internet course not affiliated with a specific school. The idea, however, was the same. We both took courses online and have nothing to show for it.

This wasn’t my first experience with online education. In the last year, I registered on Codecademy, a site teaching basic coding, and Duolingo, a site offering various language courses. As of now, I don’t actively use either site, but my positive experience with the online education further supported the idea of summer courses. In fact, most of my real classes have an online component. I keep a blog for JOMC 240, I submit online paragraphs for PWAD 490 and I’m a member of several Facebook groups for my courses. Now, I even find it odd when classes don’t use Sakai (sorry, Prof. Robinson). Keep in mind, an online component is different from a course taught solely online. In my opinion, online components are effective in educating students and online courses are not.

Regardless, MOOC’s are appealing for many reasons. For one, you never have to leave your home. Professors can teach thousands of students without any face-to-face communication. This saves time and money, but it has a major downside.

“MOOC professors are teaching thousands of students—hundreds of thousands in some cases—thus eliminating the intimacy of one-on-one interactions that are so beneficial in most offline classroom settings.”

Quizzes are submitted electronically and graded automatically. In many cases, the student won’t receive any feedback on their work. Both of my summer courses required two papers and two exams. I was also expected to write posts about the readings on an online discussion forum, as well as reply to my classmates’ posts. MOOC's are similar in that students are often given multiple attempts for a perfect score on quizzes and the essays are peer-reviewed, but just like most areas of the Internet, anonymity became a problem. I didn’t know the other students in my class, but we were expected to peer-review another paper. I found this task difficult; I couldn’t ask the writer questions about their content, and they couldn’t give me reasons for including certain points in their writing. It was ultimately ineffective. So, I didn’t put very much effort into the peer-review draft. The student on the other side was going to give me whatever grade anyway, so I didn’t take it as seriously as papers I wrote for other classes.

I’ll admit, motivation was a major problem. Although I still had to pay college-level prices for my two courses, the author of the piece said it best.

“When I’m taking a college-level course without paying college-level prices, or getting anything in return besides knowledge or a completion certificate, I simply won’t try as hard.”

Fred Wilson discusses three megatrends that are happening now, one of which is the unbundling of technology. He uses education and the learning process as an example of this trend.

“The classic university model has been around for 600-700 years, but we no longer need to be confined by the walls of a classroom – with a professor up front. We don’t need to build a library and fill it with books (we have eReaders now). The current university model is very expensive.”

We now have the ability to take courses online through sites like the ones I mentioned above, Codecademy and Duolingo. The delivery of content is unbundling; instead of attending UNC, I imagine some students could stay at home in front of their computer screen and learn a specific skill set.

I’ve failed to mention the big issue, though. I didn’t learn anything. I got my credit and went on my merry way, but I retained very little information. Education, whether online or in a classroom, is about learning the material, not just passing the course. In fact, the average retention rate for MOOC’s is only four percent. The programs may be successful in handing out degrees and credits, but what do these really mean if we don’t learn anything?

“MOOCs provide invaluable resources for continuing education and opportunities for students to take courses they might not have otherwise taken. But when I compare my experience, albeit just one course, to the education I received at a traditional university, I wouldn’t trade my in-person college career for a suite of online class credentials, no matter how many university heavyweights stand behind them.”

Moving forward, we must be careful when transforming the online component of a course into the course itself, because frankly, I can’t imagine a generation of students with multiple degrees who really don’t know anything.

The breaking news algorithm

Last year, a researcher designed an algorithm that collects data from Wikipedia and Wikidata in order to discover breaking news topics. The algorithm has proven to be successful, identifying stories such as the Boston Marathon bombings and the disappearance of Malaysia flight MH370, but researchers quickly learned users wanted more than just news. Human beings are highly visual, and we enjoy looking at pictures. The new algorithm, called the Social Media Illustrator works with the news algorithm to combine images and breaking news. Arguably, when news is associated with photos, we’re able to understand the content in a more complete way. According to this post, there are many benefits to combining visual content with news. I encourage you to view the full text, but a few statistics are listed below.

 90% of information transmitted to the brain is visual, and visuals are processed 60,000X faster in the brain than text.

 Visual content drives engagement.

 85% of the US internet audience watches videos online.

The use of images with breaking news could be beneficial to viewers, but there may also be negative effects of this connection. I find several issues with the Social Media Illustrator, as well as the original news algorithm.

“One problem is that in many cases, it is not at all clear what breaking news stories the images refer to.”

When something happens, news organizations may not know every detail in the beginning. Often, they’ll report on what they know and add details as they go along. They certainly don’t have access to a database of photos connected to the event. Even if they did, it probably wouldn’t be possible to build a complete story with those images. Wouldn’t that mean an algorithm would have trouble as well, attempting to compile a set of images that could encompass the details of a breaking news story in a way that would make sense to viewers? Don’t forget time is a major factor in this news algorithm; breaking news only remains “breaking” for so long. Building a comprehensive story with images is possible, but I’m not sure I can fully trust an algorithm to provide me with an unbiased, full news account.

Images have the potential to limit viewer imagination. After viewing a set of photos connected to a news event, the user may view that event in terms of the visual representation. It’s difficult to entertain different thoughts after you’ve been given images claiming to represent the breaking news story. Therefore, this algorithm could potentially act as a filter bubble for viewers. Since the article mentioned the Boston Marathon bombing, I’ll use that breaking news story as an example. If the image algorithm had been used as details were unfolding during that event, users would have received incorrect information, based on the photos popular during that time. Sure, I can remember seeing the bloody photos of the victims, but I also distinctly remember photos of two men (later labeled the “Bag Men” by the New York Post) who were originally thought to be the bombers. The image was popularized on social media sites and news sites alike, but the photo didn’t depict the two bombers, just two ordinary men viewing the marathon from the sideline. Since it was popular, the algorithm might have picked it up and used it in connection with its breaking news coverage of the event. Not only does this limit the scope of the story, but it facilitates the spread of incorrect information.

It’s also difficult to measure what events fall into the category of breaking news. Different subjects are important to different people. Although we can all agree events like the Boston Marathon bombing are important, what about events with less direct effect on viewers? A celebrity’s car accident may not be “breaking news” to everyone, but it’s certainly popular news. These algorithms could limit what we as viewers are supposed to care about. Users may begin to believe a lack of breaking news coverage or images suggests a lack of importance. In other words, if there isn't a diverse array of photos connected with the story or updates every five minutes, it must not be worthy of the title of breaking news.

Perhaps the most troubling effect of these algorithms is the lack of human connection with the viewers.

"It’s quite possible that some of the news we consume in the future will be spotted, evaluated and written and illustrated by an algorithm.”

If a formula can tell us everything we need to know about a story (including photos), why do we need journalists? Right now, the media dictates what should be considered breaking news. The media is made up of thousands of people and networks who write and  share their thoughts and ideas with the rest of the world; if most of them decide an event should be considered “breaking news,” it usually becomes such. They work together to quickly assemble a story for the citizens. In this way, viewers receive diverse opinions and viewpoints. Now, imagine a single algorithm dictating what breaking news should be. The lack of input from journalists and news organization could have dire consequences.

“So far, these algorithms are relatively crude and human journalists generally do a significantly better job.”

And for that, I am thankful because I don’t know about you, but I don’t like an algorithm telling me what to think.

Viral potential

Following our discussion on viral content, I looked into a more scientific study on why things go viral and how users can predict that potential. A group in California, with the help of other researchers across the nation, designed a study in order to observe photos on Facebook and measure their potential to go viral, which they call “sharing cascades.” They measure the number of shares when the content is first introduced on the site, claiming the number of shares must double in order for the photo to spread quickly. If the number of shares doubles, the content has the potential to go viral. At a later stage, they begin paying attention to the number of shares the Facebook photo garnered over time, because “the greater the number of observed reshares, the better the prediction.” The researchers have even developed an algorithm and trained a machine to look for certain features in the images.

“These features include the type of image, whether a close-up or outdoors or having a caption and so on; the number of followers the original poster has; the shape of the cascade that forms, whether a simple star graph or more complex structures; and finally how quickly the cascade takes place, its speed.”

As it turns out, the algorithm is accurate almost 80% of the time. In other words, researchers can accurately predict what content will go viral 8 out of 10 times, but I’m skeptical. Although this is one of the first studies of its kind, it leaves a lot of questions unanswered and fails to address two major factors related to viral content, the first of which is the ambiguity of elements in viral content. The researchers claim their algorithm takes into account the features of the image, but it is likely impossible to encapsulate all the random features of every image. Cat videos have the potential to go viral, but no two are just alike. To truly measure the viral potential of the content, researchers may have to label the video, sorting it into a category. So, do all cat videos get the same label?

The second factor the study fails to address in detail is time. The video below was posted on January 8, 2010, and has almost 40 million views on Youtube.

Theoretically, the algorithm could be applied to the video when it was posted in order to measure its potential to reach viral status (which it did). However, take a look at the graphs below taken from the “stats” section of the video information.

By looking at the cumulative and daily viewing totals, we can see the video didn’t reach viral status until 6 months after it was posted. How would the algorithm be applied in this situation? This study measures viral content based on potential at the beginning, so it may not be applicable to videos such as this one. Regardless, if this formula is perfected it could unleash an entirely new wave of advertising and disseminating messages online, specifically on social media. If organizations are able to predict what content will go viral, they could include features that would increase viral potential.

"Can we go to news school for a second?"

What really happened to Flight 370? That’s the question many news organizations have been posing to their viewers, diverting from their normal role of providing the facts. Instead, they’re offering theories. Since we know very little factual information surrounding the case, it’s understandably difficult to discuss the event as a whole. Although officials recently announced the plane crashed in the Indian Ocean, that didn’t stop reporters from speculating about what happened to the plane prior to this announcement. Many news stations asked users to call in with theories, while other organizations took to social media in hopes of uncovering the most entertaining user theory. RTV6 dedicated a page simply to theories surrounding the missing plane. A screencap from this page is below.

One particularly daring and disrespectful news organization, KETV NewsWatch 7 decided to tweet the photo and message below. In case you haven’t seen the TV series Lost, the news station is comparing the real plane’s disappearance (with 239 real people on board) to the fate of the plane from the fictional show. The tweet has since been deleted, but the tasteless graphic wasn’t the major problem in this situation.

There is a distinct difference between possible theories and sensationalism in the media. For example, if a news station wasn’t completely aware of the facts surrounding a home invasion, they could choose to not say anything on the subject, or instead simply work with the information they were provided to develop a probable theory. Since these news organizations had no information to work with, they were inventing their own. That pretty much goes against every principle of journalism that exists. Sensationalist theories turn into conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories are spread as false information.

In the video below, Mika Brzezinski interrupts her co-host Joe Scarborough to announce the issues she has with the discussion of Flight 370 on the station. Now that it has been determined the plane was lost at sea, maybe the theories will begin to decrease in number. My hope is that news stations will learn from their mistakes in this case and continue to adhere to the basic guidelines of journalism. If not, I fear news organizations will no longer be viewed as an accurate source of information for citizens in years to come.

A digital BFF renaissance

After tonight’s class discussion on the way we use technology to communicate, I was a little bummed out. I love my phone, but I love my friends more. It worried me to think that my tiny iPhone could have such detrimental effects on my relationships and conversations. Why can’t I use my phone to develop these relationships instead of allowing the device to hinder them? According to this article by Maureen O’Connor, I can.

The article begins with a conversation between two women regarding an intimate relationship one of the women was having with a man. The women texted back and forth, sending pictures, comments about each other’s current partners and other superficial topics. One of the women even texted a selfie to her friend and asked for the woman’s opinion (she planned on sending it to a guy and she wanted approval).

The author, a woman slightly older than me, argues that technology actually allows users to become more connected, not the other way around like many people would have us believe. She notes the texting conversation that took place between the two women might’ve never happened in real life; later in the piece, she said the conversation would have been too superficial for face-to-face conversation. Regardless, it plays an important role in maintaing the relationship.

“When my generation moved out of the dorms, technology developed to allow us to live in a perpetual virtual slumber party, gossiping with all our friends. The result may actually be more intimate than the face-to-face alternative — without camera phones, I wouldn’t have seen my friend’s lip-biting sexy face. When we text, we’re free to indulge moment-to-moment specifics: waiting for a phone call, obsessing over he-said she-said texts, trying on outfits together before going to different parties in different cities or on other sides of the city.”

It sounds silly, but she highlights an important point. Many would agree the conversations we hold on social media and through text messages may actually be more intimate than face-to-face interaction. She continues by explaining how users create their own rooms.  A Facebook thread can be used in the same way as a physical room housing all the friends. This suggests that physical interpersonal commitment isn’t always necessary in order to hold a conversation.

Instead of taking time out of the day to see a friend or family member, you are instead in constant communication with them. They are incorporated into your daily life, even if you don’t physically see them. Of course, this is not to say people can maintain a relationship solely on social media or on their phones, but it’s certainly a more positive outlook than what has previously been suggested. The author mentions a friend whose use of technology enables her to connect with others she doesn’t have the benefit of seeing often.

“As technology lowers the barrier for communication, she’s not just getting back in touch, but staying in touch, with friends who’d slipped through the cracks.”

The author explains the use of technology in terms of communicating with friends from the past and maintaining previously held relationships. She’s using texts and Facebook to remember her college days, but this kind of communication is rapidly becoming the new normal. People don’t always have time for face-to-face conversation, and that’s okay. Every now and then, shoot a person a text to let them know you’re thinking of them.

“I feel like I hear studies about how texting is ruining communication and relationships, but I honestly feel like the texts have brought us closer together. I can send a quick text in passing while I’m walking to work, a reminder that ‘Hey, I’m thinking about you,’ or ‘Hey, remember when?’ We can know a little about what’s going on each other’s lives, even when we won’t have time to talk for weeks or sometimes months.”

Technology allows us to communicate on a deeper level and maintain relationships we’ve previously formed. It’s yet to be determined exactly how effective technology is at forming lasting relationships, but that’s a topic for another day. So, the next time you see someone texting at the dinner table or at a bar, consider they may be connecting to another group, perhaps their BFFs from college. In other words, they may be playing their part in the “digital BFF renaissance.”

Hey employers, check out my Facebook page!

After reading the posts by Lauren, Kristin and Jamie on the topic of employers looking into prospective employees via social media, I thought I’d provide my own take on this issue, partly because I somewhat disagree with what they’re saying, but mostly because I like to play devil’s advocate. From the beginning, as an employer, I would be more concerned if the potential employee felt they had something to hide on their social media accounts. I’d like to believe (most) employers know candidates have social lives; they understand that those are the photos that go on social media sites. Kristin said, “College students don’t post Instagram pictures of their hard work at their internship, their religiously dedicated library visits to Davis late at night nor their academic achievements.” Employers know that. If they have a Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, they probably don’t post things like that either.

Some people may still worry that employers might see photos of their social life. If this is the case, consider what you would like to see as an employer? Would you rather hire someone who seems to communicate well with others (evident by their photos with friends) and is invested in their community (or on their campus) or someone who just takes a bunch of selfies? I know who I’d hire. Additionally, you can tell a lot about a person based on their profile picture, a point I discussed in a previous post. “Photos seem to be the primary way we make impressions of people on social networking sites,” said Brandon Van Der Heide. For example, if you were to upload a photo of you and your friends to Facebook, you may potentially look more attractive as a candidate because most jobs require some level of communication. (Disclaimer: I am not talking about candidates who post photos themselves passed out under a bar, or anything similar. That’s just stupid.)

That brings me to my next point. People are very different in interviews than they are in real life. Almost anyone can meet a potential employer with a smile on their face and a list of their qualifications, but they might just be terrible people. One look at their Twitter feed and you could likely tell what kind of person they really are. I graduated with someone whose tweets contain racial slurs roughly 75% of the time. They applied for a job, went in for an interview and the company wanted to hire them almost immediately after. One day later, after the company took a quick look at the candidate's Twitter feed, they sent him an email that said they weren't hiring him. Their reason? They saw his tweets, and he was kind of an asshole.

Now, think of someone you’ve come in contact with (someone who has a Facebook) who made you think, “How in the world did this person get a job?” We’ve all met someone like that, and I can almost promise you they did well in their interview. You may also think about someone who you work with who really shouldn’t be allowed to have a job. Just to be clear, I’m only talking about people with a social media presence; I know a lot of older people don’t use social media and therefore, can’t be considered in this category.

We share so much of our lives on these social media sites, regardless if it’s mostly the social part, so they may be a good indication of what kind of people we are. By no means do I tweet things applicable for the jobs I hope to apply for when I graduate. I tweet about the movies I watch on Netflix and who I think should be a celebrity couple, but I don’t tweet racial slurs; already, because of the things I put (and don’t put) on social media, I’m more attractive as a candidate.

I recently applied for an ambassador position for a new company. Right under my name and DOB, they asked for a link to my Facebook page, as well as how many Instagram followers I have. I don’t have a problem giving this information. In fact, I include links to my Facebook and Twitter on my resume. I do this because I want employers to know I have nothing to hide. Yes, I have a few stupid pictures on my Facebook page, and Jamie says she does too. According to this article, that doesn’t matter.

The author addresses the three major things employers look for in the social profiles of potential employees:

1. If the candidate will be a good fit
2. A candidate’s qualifications – “If you’ve mentioned your communication skills – are these supported by your online activity? What do you post or tweet about? Are you articulate, intelligent, and friendly, or are you argumentative, belligerent, and foul-mouthed?”
3. Their creativity

Bottom line, none of these things will be affected by a photo of you making a silly face.

As for me, I don’t mind if future employers look at my social media accounts, silly photos and all. I wouldn’t want to work for anyone who couldn’t find humor in that, anyway.

What did you expect?

We've talked a lot about body image and sexualizing females in the media, so this video fits right in with our discussion.

Buzzfeed recently released this video showing men playing women’s roles in three popular commercials.

People have developed different opinions on the topic of gender and sexuality in advertisements. Some say both men and women should be equally sexualized in ads, while others think neither should be featured. While opinions differ, one fact remains. Women in the media are often over sexualized in advertisements and are expected to fall into a subordinate role.

The video is designed to show the other side of this concept, as well as how the media uses this in their ads. I understand the clip isn’t attempting to be serious (it’s more of a comical representation of the sexuality concept), but my own reaction surprised me. The men looked so silly to me; specifically in the last clip, the man on the beach looked so out of place. His character was used to depict the perfect, tan and muscular man on the beach, just as the real commercial uses an attractive woman. Regardless of his physique, he just looked wrong in that scene, and that bothered me.

I couldn’t help but think the males looked so out of place because I was expecting a female. I hadn’t seen the first two commercials in this video, but I believe the original ones were “better.” In every clip where the roles were reversed, I thought to myself, “that doesn’t look right” and “that’s the place for a woman.” Are these ideas ingrained in my mind? Do I automatically expect a woman in sexualized ads? Is it because I’m used to viewing women in this way? If this is the case, I can certainly see why nothing has changed in the advertising industry. If everyone keeps expecting women in these roles, that’s what advertisers will continue to feed us.

First kiss

Less than a week ago, filmmaker Tatia Pilieva uploaded a video titled “First Kiss” to her YouTube account with the simple description, “We asked twenty strangers to kiss for the first time…” In just six days, the video has garnered over 58 million views on the site. And yes, it’s just as awkward as you’d imagine.

The video was shared on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites, by users encouraging others to watch the short black-and-white clip; many users found it moving and beautiful. How else could you explain why a video of 20 strangers kissing went viral? When users share viral content, they are sharing emotions. In this case, they were sharing the emotions surrounding the experience of a first kiss. But one critic disagreed with the idea of sharing emotion, instead saying users loved the video because they were told to love the video by their friends or family members on social media. He said because the video was in black-and-white and played soft music while couples shared romantic moments, users were almost expected to find it inspiring. It had all the characteristics of an uplifting video, but he argued many people shared the link because they were supposed to like it, not because they were sharing emotion through viral content.

But the critics didn’t stop there. Like all viral content, the video came under heavy scrutiny by those who wanted to know more about it. Turns out, the video is actually an advertisement for a clothing company called Wren, owned by Melissa Coker. Almost immediately, sites began labeling the video as “fake,” saying “First Kiss” features famous models, singers and band members who are all wearing clothing by Wren Studio. But speaking to the NY Times, Melissa Coker said she wasn’t trying to trick anyone. The 20 strangers had never met prior to shooting, so the experience was 100% real.

“The video flashes ‘Wren presents’ at the beginning and also mentions the company in the credits. ‘There was no part of it where this was a secret,’ Ms. Coker said.”

In response to Coker's statement, Pedestrian brings up an interesting point.

"If 'First Kiss' never pretended to be anything otherwise, does its nature as an advertisement make it (retroactively) any less moving for it being just another ad for clothes - albeit a brilliant one presented in a highly-shareable format? Are whatever feelings it evoked in you rendered void now you're a little wiser to its motives; or is this no different to being moved by the performances of actors in a film?"

This is a question advertisers will have to consider when modeling ads in the future. I’m not an advertising major, but I would say this video is well done (aside from those calling it “fake”). Combining emotion and advertisements is an effective way to promote a product or a company, possibly by producing viral content. I believe more advertisers will look to boosting sales through sharing emotions and online content. With only a $1,300 budget, Coker produced an advertisement that has been viewed millions of times, far exceeding the number she could reach even during fashion week.

“You can’t reach 40 million viewers in an 11- to 15-minute fashion runway presentation.” The times have changed. Maybe it’s time for advertisements to change as well.