Source ｜ Internet and Entertainment Gangsters ( ID: TMTphantom)
Author ｜ Pei Pei, head of the blame group
Head Image ｜ Screenshot of “Houlang”
On the evening of May 3rd, the leader of the blame robber group lay on the sofa to play the game. During the break, he brushed the circle of friends, and then witnessed a spectacular scene: at least 20 of my WeChat friends, uniformly Reposted the video link of “Houlang”, some also added a few comments (mostly appreciated).
I am curious what is “Houlang”? Someone told me that it was a publicity film prepared by Station B for the May 4th Youth Day. The general theme is “The Yangtze River Waves Push Forward,” and the young people in China are amazing. I thought to myself, that’s not bad. However, I do n’t have the habit of viewing non-two-dimensional content at station B, so I did n’t read it.
After waking up the next day, I was shocked by opening WeChat-topics related to “Houlang” constituted a Trinity bombardment of my WeChat social system. Even if I read the title a little, it would take more than a dozen Minutes:
-
In the circle of friends, more than one hundred friends reposted the topic of “Houlang”, but No longer a video link, but a variety of self-media comments;
-
When I take a look, the timeline is completely submerged by “Houlang”, there may be more than 300 ‘S friends have clicked “Reading” on the public account article related to “Houlang”;
-
In the WeChat group I joined, especially those related to the Internet, “Houlang” became The hot topic, and the separation of “pros” and “opposition” quickly opened my eyes.
In just 48 hours, at least tens of thousands of self-media articles and comments from netizens were born on “Houlang”, distributed on WeChat public accounts, Weibo, Zhihu, Toutiao, Douban, etc. Imagined content platform. According to my observations, the discussion of “Houlang” can be roughly divided into the following three categories:
-
Discussion on “Houlang” itself, including ideas, materials, shooting techniques, cost-benefit, etc .; this kind of discussion accounts for the lowest proportion. Obviously most people are drunkards and do n’t want to drink.
-
With the help of “Houlang” discussion on B station, including B station’s community tone, content tone, market strategy, user stratification, etc., which are clearly divided into “support B station” and “oppose B station” “Two factions.
-
Taking the “Houlang” as an introduction to discuss the generation gap, class solidification and even high housing prices in China, which can be broken down into three major factions: some are more serious academics, and some are Mimons that create contradictions among the people , And some of them are gags of gags.
According to my observation, the first type of discussion does not occupy a majority at any time; the second type of discussion is the majority on May 4th. The people who appreciate the B station in the morning still have the upper hand, and the afternoon becomes the Tucao B station. The majority of people are the majority; the mainstream on May 5th has become the third type of discussion, such as “the front wave died on the beach”, “there is little room for the back wave to rise” and so on. In any case, in the current Internet environment, a three-minute video can continue to produce 48 hours of high heat, it is already very difficult. Can it last for another 48 hours?
On the evening of May 4th, a friend of my 90s asked me: “Head, what do you think of” Houlang “? I was very excited at first, but now it seems that there are more negative comments on the Internet.” < / p>
I said: “I haven’t seen it yet.” (Not because there is no time, it’s a matter of viewing habits.)
The other party kindly advised me: “Should take a look, this is the hottest topic now! Don’t stay away from the mainstream.”
I said: “Even if I watch it, it is very likely that there will be no comments. I have to watch hundreds of movies and play dozens of games every year, and I don’t have much comment on most of them. Just score. ”
However, I can’t avoid other people’s heated discussion about “Houlang”. Everyone is expressing their attitude, relishing it with relish. Everyone stands at a different level, chooses different positions, and focuses on different things, but one thing is the same-make a statement, show your opinion firmly, and then try your best to maintain it. This confuses me a little and is not used to it.
I am not just referring to “Houlang”. We seem to have entered an era of “pan-view” and “pan-statement”. Most of the information obtained, published and exchanged every day belongs to the category of attitude. We are busy expressing our attitude in every thing. It is easy to divide small circles according to our behavior and to work and live according to our attitude. In fact, we don’t care so much about the facts. Everyone is eager to get past the fact stage, and express their opinions quickly, desperately, and as deeply as possible.
First talk about theoretical terms. From the perspective of the head of this blame group, all information can be roughly divided into two categories:
The first type is facts, that is, objective, not controversial, easy to prove or falsify, and similar to the authenticity of everyone. For example, “Houlang” was produced by Station B and released on the entire network on May 3/4. This is the fact.
The second type is opinion, that is, subjective, personally judged information that is often difficult to prove or falsify. For example, “” Houlang “is not a well-produced promotional film”, this is the point of view.
In reality, we often find it difficult to find “pure” factual information. Facts and opinions are often interpenetrating. For example, “B standing in the early stage was a two-dimensional barrage community, and later gradually expanded its scope to devote itself to the circle.” This is a mixed message of fact and opinion. However, it still carries a strong objective color, which can be discussed and we can also findProof or falsification.
What we are seeing now is that people are more and more subjective when disseminating opinions, and more and more abandon the objective elements of them, completely ignoring the facts; for such arbitrary, arbitrary, lack of provable or provable The pseudo-view is what I call a “statement”. According to historical experience, “statement” is often suitable for standing on a major occasion, with a strong interpersonal politics. But now, people seem to be used to stating on any issue.
In the past 48 hours, most of the media reviews, self-media reviews, and circle of friends texts I have seen about “Houlang” belong to “statements.” They either contain no facts or only a few factual descriptions; in the title, they are quite arbitrary; in the text, they are often lacking in logic and fragmented. Do n’t get me wrong, there are also good ideas, but it ’s just overwhelmed by the “statement information” that flows like tide.
Take a few simple examples:
-
“Why most of the” Houlang “reposted in your circle of friends are middle-aged “At least this title doesn’t suit me. In my circle of friends, “Houlang” has been reposted from 60s to 90s. Of course, this does not mean that “Houlang” really reached full age coverage; but starting from an extremely wrong premise, I don’t think it can produce any valuable discussion.
-
“” Houlang “made Station B finally complete the circle”, this view is also very “statement” “, It is easy to be mistaken for soft text. It is a big topic whether station B needs to go out and when it can be completed. To judge the significance of “Houlang” in the process of going out, the current information is probably not enough.
-
“The planning and creators of” Houlang “actually don’t understand young people” Uncompromising position. The authors of such opinions are often not young people, nor have they researched and interviewed enough young people, nor can they track the opinions of a large number of young people on Houlang.
-
“The room for the rising waves is getting smaller and smaller”, which may be a worthwhile The topic of discussion, but should not be related to “Houlang” and its platform. What’s interesting is that this kind of “exerting questions” is often very dry, but it can be distinguished from pure expression to a certain extent.
When I was a seller analyst, I was used to writing reviews and providing opinions every week or even every day. For those popular companies and industries that the market focuses on, how to write opinions is not enough. The company issued an announcement to comment, organized a survey to comment, new product launch to comment, industry policy briefing to comment, and influential media reports to comment … The problem is, where are there so many insights to write? ? Moreover, the seller’s reviews have high requirements on timeliness. News published at 7 pm, I wish to send a review at 9 o’clock. If you do n’t see your review the next morning, it ’s a big mistake.
As a result, most of the “comments” have become statements. Because we are very optimistic about XXXX, all positive news will push it to a higher level. All negative news can be ignored, and all neutral news is actually positive news. Later, someone edited a paragraph: “Anything happening in any corner of the world will benefit Maotai.” You can replace “Maotai” with the most promising company name that you are pushing. Anyway, no one will take your reviews seriously.
Analysts are going to eat, and since the media is about traffic, hurried expressions may be justifiable. However, it is surprising to me that most people, even those who are not familiar with this field, are eager to express their opinions on “Houlang”. Perhaps it is because this topic involves a lot of people. People in the Internet industry have seen Station B, people in the cyclical industry have seen class solidification, people in the consumer industry have seen the tendency of young people to consume, and people in the cultural industry have seen changes in aesthetic taste. , People in the education industry see the generation gap?
If it is for venting emotions or relieving boredom, “statement” is understandable; if it is serious research and analysis, I particularly disagree with “statement”. Not only in charge
-
-
-
-
-
-
-