Connect with us

Media

Hashtag Trending – 3 social media predictions for 2020 – IT World Canada

Published

 on


Welcome to a special episode of Hashtag Trending as we bring you through our predictions for social media in 2020. 

Last year we made the prediction that augmented reality and virtual reality would begin to see much more use in Facebook and Snapchat. We were fresh off Facebook’s acquisition of Oculus and Apple had just invested into Finisar. And while we did not see AR and VR take root in those platforms in quite the way that we expected, that does not mean that the rise of AR and VR has failed to materialize, and we are doubling down on our prediction to see those technologies infiltrate social media. According to stats from Statista, the global economic impact of these technologies is set to rise by over 50 per cent, from just under 20 billion USD to just under 30 billion USD, and we see no way that growth does not spill over into social media.

2019 was not a great year for Facebook by any stretch of the imagination. Controversy seemed to constantly swirl around them. From a lack of confidence in its leadership to worries that not enough is being done to monitor the tech giant, and not least notably, its refusal to fact check political ads. And with that controversy, we believe that 2020 will be the year we truly see the downfall of Facebook, at least as a marketing tool. We are already starting to see the stepping stones to this reality, as the number of young users – which includes anyone aged 12 to 34 in this case – has gone down by 17 per cent over the last two years, according to a study from Edison Research. And as the users flee, so too will all the advertising dollars.

As we see the likely demise of advertising on Facebook, we believe another tech superpower will come in to fill the gap that was left behind by the big blue F. Who is that tech giant, you ask? Well Amazon of course! As if they needed to invade every corner of this world anymore, they seem to be gearing up to take over the online ad space. This prediction is backed up by eMarketer, an analyst firm. They expect to see Amazon’s market share rise from 2 per cent to 3 per cent, on the backs of being able to offer what they call the complete digital wallet. This means that Amazon can offer the full e-commerce experience that other platforms like Facebook cannot.


Related Download
Sponsor: Epson


Epson Business Solutions – Knowledge Hub

With a proven track record of delivering cost-effective innovation to new and existing markets worldwide, Epson has become an industry leader in solutions that support success.
Learn More

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Media

Your Employees Want You to Post on Social Media – BNN

Published

 on


(Bloomberg) — CEOs who think having a Twitter account is optional may want to think again.

Employees prefer working for business leaders who are active on social media by a ratio of 4 to 1, according to a survey by Brunswick Group, an advisory firm. Executives who are vocal online are seen as more transparent and accessible, a perception crucial for retention and recruitment, the firm found.

Far from a frivolous sideshow, platforms like Twitter and LinkedIn have increasingly become a way for C-suite executives to communicate directly with staff, investors and the public. 

Tesla Inc.’s Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk has famously leveraged his Twitter following over the years, including into a bid to take over the platform itself, while Adam Aron of AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. took to the site to ride the meme-stock frenzy that sent the company’s stock price soaring. Aviva Plc’s CEO Amanda Blanc last week addressed sexist comments she received during a shareholders meeting in a post on LinkedIn.

Brunswick surveyed 3,600 employees of companies with staff of more than 1,000 and 2,800 readers of financial publications. 

Some 82% of employees will research a CEO’s online presence when considering joining the company and nearly 80% of employees and over 90% of financial news readers expected leaders to communicate on social media when a crisis hits. 

Nearly 90% of employees and financial readers use social media every month compared to just 70% that use traditional media sources, according to Brunswick, adding to both the importance and risk of these platforms.

Executives can highlight what they want and control the narrative about their company in real-time, Arvind Malhotra, professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at the University of North Carolina Kenan–Flagler Business School, said in an interview. There’s always a chance there will be people who disagree, or who use the platform to express grievances, he said. Even when the response is negative, executives who respond directly and honestly might still win more support than they lose.

“But this requires a communication style very different from a letter to shareholders in an annual report — if you’re not authentic you can turn people off rather than get them excited about the firm,” Malhotra said. 

(Updates with commentary in last two paragraphs.)

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Watch Live: Maple Leafs’ Shanahan, Dubas, Keefe speak to media – Sportsnet.ca

Published

 on


Update: This stream has ended.

The Toronto Maple Leafs are coming off one of the most successful regular seasons in franchise history but another quick playoff exit. Now the team’s leaders will have to reconvene to navigate a complicated off-season with the goal of getting over the playoff hump.

Ahead of a busy summer, team president Brendan Shanahan, general manager Kyle Dubas and head coach Sheldon Keefe will speak to the media.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Media

How a SIDS Study Became a Media Train Wreck – The Atlantic

Published

 on


Sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, “will be a thing of the past,” according to Carmel Harrington, a sleep researcher at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, in Australia. A press release describes her new study, out this month, as a “game-changing” effort and a “world-first breakthrough” that could prevent future deaths from the tragic illness. Celebrations quickly spread on social media: “THEY FOUND THE CAUSE OF SIDS. Excuse me while I cry for all the parents,” one viral tweet declared. “Closest thing to a miracle in a long time,” said another. The press soon picked up the story. On Friday, a segment on Good Morning America touted Harrington’s “very, very important study” of SIDS, while a story in the New York Post promised that her data would “bring closure to countless parents who have endured the nightmare of losing a child.”

Sadly, these claims are quite absurd. The original research paper, published on May 6, described a small-scale but interesting project: Harrington and her colleagues measured activity levels of a protein called butyrylcholinesterase in dried blood collected from about 600 babies shortly after birth, including 26 who died from SIDS and 30 who went on to die from a different condition during their first two years of life. On average, those who died from SIDS had somewhat less butyrylcholinesterase activity in their blood than healthy newborns did. According to the study’s authors, this suggests that, with further work, the protein “could potentially be used as a biomarker to identify and prevent future SIDS deaths.” If that qualifies as a scientific “miracle,” the bar is inches from the ground.

Even after decades of research, SIDS remains “unexpected, dramatic, and devastating,” as three prominent doctors put it in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial published over the weekend. If researchers had really pinpointed a biological cause for these deaths—as some press reports have claimed—it would salve parents’ anxiety and might lead to future treatments. But one need only read the new paper in its entirety to see they haven’t reached this goal.

At best, the study represents an incremental advance. This is not meant to be an insult; science works in increments. But the numbers don’t suggest that a screening test for SIDS is really in the works, let alone one that will quickly end the scourge of infant deaths. The authors report that protein-activity levels were measured in a range of 1.7 to 23.3 units per milligram for healthy newborns, and from 2.9 to 10.8 for those who died of SIDS. Though the group averages were different overall (7.7 versus 5.6), individual values still overlapped a great deal. In other words, a low protein-activity level at birth could be found in a baby who might end up dying from SIDS, as well as one who would go on to live a healthy life.

I reached out to Harrington and her co-author Karen Waters, a professor of child and adolescent health at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, to ask about this issue, among others. Measuring the protein “will not work as a universal screening test, for precisely the reasons that you have highlighted,” Waters told me via email. Harrington said that their “finding represents the possibility for the future identification of infants at risk for SIDS” and that the study identifies “a measurable biochemical marker (not cause)” of the condition.

The confusing and controversial status of SIDS as a formal diagnosis adds to the uncertainty. SIDS is considered a “diagnosis of exclusion,” which means that it applies only when other causes have been carefully ruled out, and also that it is likely to comprise a number of different conditions. Some forensic pathologists have abandoned the diagnosis entirely on account of this ambiguity, James Gill, the chief medical examiner of Connecticut, told me. The authors of this month’s study did not have access to autopsy details for any of their subjects, and relied in most cases on a coroner’s assessment that SIDS had been the cause of death.

Even if it were possible to develop a screening test for SIDS, we might not want to use it. As a hospital pathologist myself—which is to say, as a doctor who specializes in diagnostic testing—I know that every form of screening makes mistakes. Sometimes, the benefits from these tools are worth the harm of an occasional error. Cervical-cancer screening, for example, greatly reduces deaths even though pap smears regularly lead to unhelpful results. But a wonky SIDS test would have catastrophic ill effects. A false positive result would terrify new parents. A false negative could lead them to abandon safe-sleeping practices—or far worse, make them seem at fault if SIDS did strike. Even true results might not be much help, because early-detection tests are only as good as the treatments we use in response to them. An aggressive campaign by pediatricians to promote safer sleep practices has caused the number of SIDS deaths to plummet since the 1990s. That campaign’s advice is already given out to everyone, and would not change on the basis of a blood test.

Given that no further interventions would be available for infants flagged as high-risk by a screening test for SIDS, I asked the authors whether it makes sense to measure babies in this way. Waters responded by citing the “fundamental principle” that you should not screen newborns for disease unless you can “affect the outcome for the child.” Harrington has suggested in an interview that the researchers “don’t know the shape of what the intervention will be at this stage.”

If the study’s findings were ambiguous, and its implications dubious, why did the research get so much attention in the media? Many outlets seemed impressed by its connection to The Lancet, founded in 1823, and one the world’s most prestigious medical journals. The SIDS paper did not actually appear in The Lancet, but rather in a lesser-known periodical called eBioMedicine, which happens to be published under The Lancet’s umbrella brand (along with more than 20 other journals). Media coverage glossed over that distinction, though, or ignored it altogether. (Good Morning America managed to combine the two journals’ names into a fictional publication called “eLancet.”) These errors are understandable; prominent Lancet branding on eBioMedicine’s website and web address make it easy to get confused, and journal editors sometimes take advantage of academic prestige to court media attention.

The study’s tenuous connection to The Lancet was just one small part of its appeal. More significant was Harrington’s own story: She’d lost her son to SIDS 29 years ago, and then watched as a friend lost a baby to the same ailment a few years later. Harrington spent the intervening decades trying to discover a way to prevent this tragedy for others. “I made a solemn resolution there and then to leave no stone unturned in my quest to solve the mystery of the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,” she wrote in a request to crowdfund her research that was first posted in August 2018. Before the study was published this month, the campaign hadn’t received a contribution since 2019; now donations have been pouring in. As of yesterday, the campaign had raised about $50,000, mostly in small increments. “Since we have published our research, I have continued to be overwhelmed by the generosity of the community,” Harrington told me.

There’s no shame in soliciting funds for a good cause, and Harrington’s scrappy effort to keep her research going could be seen to merit praise. But Harrington herself has linked improbable claims about the science to overt requests for money: “To get us there, we need a lot of funding,” she told an interviewer, moments after saying that she “knows” that SIDS will be eradicated in “three to five years’ time.” (The hospital, which manages the endeavor’s charitable account, lent credence to this accelerated time frame in its press release.) An article from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation quoted Harrington making a plea for further backing: “We know what we have to do. It’s just actually getting the funding for it.” But the story, like numerous others, did not provide any appraisal of the research from independent experts, which would have helped inform potential donors. Harrington, in her email to me, reiterated her claim that screening tests and interventions “could be 3-5 years away” with appropriate funding.

Many outlets also neglected to mention the study’s known limitations, as described in the paper. In that context, the authors acknowledge that they examined relatively few subjects, and that the tested blood was more than two years old. Their results could, therefore, turn out quite differently if the technique were put into widespread practice. “There is a lot more work to be done before this can be heralded as a solution,” Waters told me in her email. “As we said in the paper, it offers new directions for research in the field.” Harrington told me that “this finding is only one bit of the puzzle and there is so much more to learn.”

Harrington’s personal accomplishments cannot be dismissed, even if new tests and treatments seem further away than she claims. Most of us never generate a speck of new scientific knowledge. To come back from tragedy, toil for decades, and then produce a promising approach for closer study … well, that may not be miraculous, but it matters all the same.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending