Connect with us

Business News

Dang kids can’t tell real news from fake “news” ads

(MARKETING NEWS) This Stanford study tested schoolkids’ ability to assess the value of digital media and their take on fake news ads.

Published

on

fake news ads

Just sayin’

I am proud to announce, far too late for it to do any good, that I have discovered the one thing in the petty, grueling, factionalized 2016 presidential election – other than the fact that the 2016 presidential election was remarkably petty, grueling and factionalized – that the entire American electorate can agree on.

Media sucks.

bar

Testing the kids

I mean, I work in the media, but sticks and stones. Neither side in this election so much as spoke the phrase “mainstream media” without an invisible “…which sucks” appended. But good news, everyone! Stanford has figured out the problem: it’s people.

Wait, no. I’m sorry. That’s Soylent Green. Soylent Green is people.

The Stanford study tested schoolkids’ ability to assess the value of digital media. In fact, it tested middle school, high school and college students, but let’s talk middle school. The study concluded that middle schoolers – a demographic not on the whole notable for buying power or political influence – rely on obvious signifiers as to whether something is an advertisement or an article, such as visible dollar amounts or the “big blue X” that nice websites provide for unwelcome banners. OK?

Where data gets a bit deeper

But then things get interesting. In the executive summary of the study, available as a free PDF, Stanford draws that conclusion from an experiment in which students – again, we’re talking middle school here – are shown a fake but convincing frontispiece of the online news magazine Slate.com. One’s a banner ad, which more than 75% of subjects correctly identified. Ten-year-olds got the ad. Done, right?

Apparently not.

There were two more pieces to look at: a “sponsored content” native advertisement and a non-sponsored article advocating consumers buy California almonds. Stanford was troubled by how many students failed to identify “sponsored content” as an advertisement, and the other as an article.

I’m not. Here’s why, straight from the students themselves.

Regarding the actual article: “It is an advertisement because they are trying to persuade people that almonds aren’t bad and that you should buy them.” Well… yes. That’s what it’s doing, and that’s what an advertisement does.

Discussing the sponsored post: “There is nothing to suggest that something is sold. No money, deals, etc. It sounds like an article.” Well… no. There isn’t. None of those things appear in the “sponsored content” presented.

They’re not wrong

Recall that both those arguments are being made by people under 14. And as the linked summary shows, the title and tagline of the article some students “inaccurately” identified as an advertisement? “Should California Stop Growing Almonds? The nut has been vilified for drinking up the state’s water supply. It doesn’t deserve such a bad rap.” Bolding in the original emphasizes the article’s perceived bias.

These students aren’t reading the material wrong; they’re reading it as written. They’re deciding whether to treat something as an article – important information for a reader to assess for themselves – or as an advertisement – an argument meant to elicit a particular act from the reader – based on the content, not the format. Not what it looks like, but what it says. Because in post-smartphone digital media, whether it’s Slate or The American Genius, pretty much everything looks like an ad.

Nice work, kids.

Screenshot courtesy of Ev Williams.

#FakeNews

Matt Salter is a writer and former fundraising and communications officer for nonprofit organizations, including Volunteers of America and PICO National Network. He’s excited to put his knowledge of fundraising, marketing, and all things digital to work for your reading enjoyment. When not writing about himself in the third person, Matt enjoys horror movies and tabletop gaming, and can usually be found somewhere in the DFW Metroplex with WiFi and a good all-day breakfast.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business News

If you want to hire your top pick, studies say quit stalling

(BUSINESS) Waiting for more than a month to make a final offer may mean that you’re missing out on the valuable candidates you really want to hire.

Published

on

hire candidates

The phrase “Slow and steady wins the race” may describe your optimal strategy in some departments, but according to a study by 3Gem, hiring isn’t one of them. If you’re waiting more than a month before deciding on a new hire, you’re most likely not getting your first pick.

The study, conducted via 9,000 employees, determined that around 67 percent of employees had passed on their first job choice because they didn’t hear back from an employer before a second opportunity arose. Additionally, 70 percent of those surveyed said that they wouldn’t stick around for a job if the hiring process took more than a month from start to finish.

If your ears are burning, it may be time to change your hiring tactics.

This isn’t to say that you should rush into hiring; your recruiting process deserves time and ample consideration. However, taking more than a few weeks to go through the process of starting recruiting, meeting applicants, and making your final offer means that you’re both missing out on top-notch talent and wasting the time of countless potential recruits.

Consider your applicant pool: the majority of your options are either currently unemployed or heading in that direction (volitionally or otherwise). Few people can afford to stay unemployed for more than a month, meaning that any option, regardless of whether your business is the employee’s dream environment, starts to look better than your lack of a timely answer.

From an employee’s perspective, an application is as good as rejected if they haven’t heard back within a couple of weeks, and having no income during that period of time is suboptimal. Waiting for more than four weeks before making a decision, to say nothing of more than that—20 percent of the surveyed employees had experienced wait times of over two months—is unacceptable.

The math is simple: exceptional candidates have neither the time nor the need to wait for a response. If you place hiring over other activities during your recruiting bouts, prioritize the top one percent of your applicants, and make your final offer the second you’ve made up your mind, you’ll see an increase in in-house talent in no time.

Continue Reading

Business News

How your company can take advantage of the gig economy, not fear it

(NEWS) The gig-economy is increasing in popularity and you shouldn’t be quick to write it off.

Published

on

ambitious career hacks

Gigs are expanding

The gig economy is buzzing. The term has now come to signify any contractual, part-time, freelance work, and is not limited to the tech universe.

bar

Freelance freedom

Between 2004 and 2014, independent contracting employment increased from 12 percent to only about 18 percent. In the last several years the gig economy has exploded onto the scene.

The 2016 Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows that the rate of self-employment in America is falling, and yet more people are engaging in freelance work, which last year stood at an impressive 35 percent of the total economy.

What gives?

The answer, backed by several surveys, is simple.

People with full-time jobs are increasingly participating in part-time gigs.

And although the Uber driver has become the poster-child, the scope of the gig economy is much wider.

A growing gig nation

The BLS report clearly states, “Gig workers are spread among diverse occupation groups and are not easily identified (added emphasis) in surveys of employment and earnings.”

Linkedin predicts that by 2020, 43 percent Americans shall be engaged in gig economy.

Really not a shock

This should not come as a surprise. By now it is well known that our out-of-date model of success — “study hard—earn a degree—get a job” is failing.

There are too many graduates, and too few well-paid full time jobs.

The private sector has also struggled. In most American metro areas, more businesses are closing than new ones are opening up.

For many millennials, it is the sole source of income. For others, it is an easy way to make some extra cash. Today’s millennials have less purchasing power than Baby Boomers or Gen Xers. But this picture no longer accurately portrays the essence of the gig economy.

Many of today’s gig economy participants, especially younger employees, actually have full-time jobs.

However, instead of opening their own businesses by quitting their full-time jobs (a common practice in the past), they are pouring their passion into these freelance gigs IN ADDITION to their full time jobs.

The gig economy today has thus become an outlet that captures their expressions of creativity.

Gigs reaching beyond their stereotypical niche

The tech industry is already well known for a thriving gig economy. Contractual Web-developers (~$31/hr), Software developers (~$48/hr), Graphic Designers, and Multimedia Artists are all experiencing high demands.

But gig economy culture is spreading to other sectors of the economy, largely facilitated by the internet experience.

It is infiltrating administrative & support services, healthcare and even real estate.

Seasonal gigs are still a thing

Some demands are very much seasonal. Contract Accountants (~$30/hr) are in high demand as taxpayers try to submit their returns before April 15. Other gig economies are in demand year round.

Truck delivery is one of the highest paid gigs, which got a boost through the popularity of Amazon and eBay.

Low barriers to entry also make gig economies attractive. Take for example, Airbnb. So long as you have a spare room in a well-located, highly visited city, you can partake in the hospitality business!
This is good news for our economy! The criticisms it faces are mostly unfounded, and must be resisted.

Don’t listen to the haterz

The media and the government often unfairly characterizes the gig economy. The contract worker is seen as a victim, as being preyed upon by the big businesses, entering an exploitative arrangement, often unknowingly and against his own best interest.
The advent of the gig economy is painted as the death of salaries, health insurance and vacation days.
The goal of such criticism seems to be to reduce the number of contract workers and increase the number of definable “employees”. This argument overlooks the fact that each of these contracts were entered voluntarily and fulfilled a service that was a gap in the market.

Too many benefits

A 2016 Fastcompany survey found that 75 percent of employees still prefer health benefits to usual industry benefits like remote work.

While that is certainly true of a job seeker without any other job, statistics show us that more freelancers are full-time employees fishing for side gigs.

Forcing contractors to supply fringe benefits would result in duplicative benefits.

Gigging is not predatory

The debate over how to appropriately regulate the gig economy shall continue.

Obviously, companies may come up with strategies to exploit contract employees.

But at a time when traditional employers are experiencing downward pressure on their profit margins and retaining employees while tackling soaring insurance costs has become a challenge, engaging the best and the brightest from the gig economy becomes increasingly necessary. Industries that engage in it should not be seen as predatory.

Helping not hurting

In fact, it is quite the opposite. Gig economies empower the labor market in new innovative ways, when traditional markets have failed them.

Even the best schools in our land now advise their graduates to stop looking for full time jobs and participate in the gig economy.

Therefore, the caricature that the eager job seekers of the gig market must be bottom-of-the-barrel talent pool is also grossly erroneous.

Gotta up the ante

Yet, many companies have under-invested in this area. They have done too little to lobby for themselves and entirely miss out reaping its benefits.

Some still wait for traditional application to populate their inbox instead of actively recruiting from the gig-economy.

Their recruiting strategies are also failing. Mentioning “working remotely” as a reward on the job description is simply not good enough anymore.

Take the first step

Instead, companies should stress on their own unique story: a passion-driven project, with lots of creative leeway and good pay.

Research shows that the modern employee wants flexible hours, fair but few rules, and transparent pay structures.Click To Tweet

All of this can be easily achieved in a gig economy setting. What are we waiting for?

This editorial originally ran on March 21, 2017.

Continue Reading

Business News

This chatbot was designed to scam the scammers #beautiful

(NEWS) This AI chatbot has been designed to waste spammers’ time intelligently, and it is just oh so beautiful!

Published

on

re:scam spam chatbot

Spam emails are unfortunately a never-ending source of email annoyance. No matter how we improve our spam filters, 2017’s Nigerian Princes never fail to come out of the woodwork.

Efforts to fight scammers and the ever evolving techniques of scams they try to do come in varied forms, or in the case of New Zealand’s tech company NetSafe – multiple personalities.

NetSafe, an international non-profit dedicated to internet safety, has created a chatbot that could best be described as a sophisticated AI troll.

Re:scam is an email bot that is designed to reply to scam emails and give them a taste of their own drama.

How it works: forward any scam email to me@rescam.org – from there, the various personalities of the app work together to respond to that scamming email as though it was a would-be victim.

This helps keep scamming relevant by drawing attention to the issue. The emails exchanged can help teach us more about scammers, who regularly adjust their techniques, and it’s hitting scammers where it hurts – their wallet. Lost profits and wasted time mean the scammers have less time to do the scamming spam sucking that they thrive on.

The website details a few of the most common scams: banking, beneficiaries, romance, and #WesternUnion. With examples of how the app responds. The emails are humorously trolling, and I could see the romance one being an almost awkward comedy skit. Plus, Re:scam boasts some amazing success: over 47,000 emails have been sent and the app is getting a lot done – so far the app boasts five months of wasted time for scammers.

The biggest concern I would have had with this chatbot is quickly dispelled: Re:scam uses a proxy email and doesn’t tangle any of your personal information after you forward the email into the conversation. The site also reminds you that this application does not serve as a spam detection tool, but it does teach you some information to help you recognize spam emails.

In addition to sounding like a perfect revenge via scamming the scammer, the Re:scam chatbot is showing some promise as a great tool to help make the internet a slightly safer place. Give it a go and #SpamtheSpamoutoftheSpammers

Continue Reading

Emerging Stories