facebook?

[XIII]

This is not really/only addressed to Alan, but more to Matt Platis and Ilke:

Do you know who's behind the facebook fan-page? :

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alan-Davis/42774461630

And more importantly, don't you think at this point it would be much better to move the board activity to facebook?

I mean mostly Ilke's update thread. IMO all that work would be much better off at facebook than confined to this board.

My point is: maybe you guys could contact the admin of that existing FB page and convince him to made you co-admins and therefore let you put the page to good use. I'm sure those 2275 followers would appreciate if the page started doing business and keeping them informed of all things Alan Davis instead of just languishing there accumulating virtual cobwebs...

Alternatively, you could create your own Davis-centric facebook fan-page and do the same on your own, but getting 2275 followers is not easy, that's a lot of groundwork already done and it's a shame it's there for nothing.

Seriously, boards are (mostly) dead in this day and age. I know this one is. Facebook is where it's at now.

[Matt Platis]

When I redesigned the boards here I thought about moving to more of a blog/Facebook type of site and recently I have thought about it but I am not sure whether or not a Facebook page would really flourish. There are obviously some pros but there would be some cons.

I don't want to speak on Alan's behalf but I myself honestly don't care if this board or a new Facebook page gets a lot of traffic or "likes". I am certainly not in it for the money or fame. This board has never really generated much traffic to begin with and personally I kinda like that being the only guy behind the curtain. I rarely have run into problems with the members here and I have only banned one person and maybe given only a few warnings out after doing this for 7-8 years or so. We still run into the problem of getting fans to ask questions here on the site instead of e-mailing Alan directly. I don't know if having a Facebook page would change that way of thinking. Having just a Facebook page could alienate those that are not into social media.

I do agree that this sort of medium is losing its momentum and message boards are increasingly becoming less popular. But then any new gadget/wave/fashion does in the long run. Blogs were huge a few years ago and already they are not talked about as much. Adopting to new ways of communication is a good thing but I am not convinced myself that this social media movement is the appropriate way to go. I am not completely disagreeing with you, like I said, there are pros and cons. And it is an interesting thought to entertain. You got me thinking again!

[Alan Davis]

I’m one of those people who have no interest in social media so never even considered having a FACEBOOK or BLOG—as is clear from my lengthy absences on the Forum I struggle to make time to contribute here (or indeed to update my own website)and the contributions I have made are due to the fact Matt built the Forum and made it a comfortable place to visit. I’ve never been much for self promotion and don’t consider the mundanety of daily life worth the time to Blog or twitter. Ilke does a sterling job with updates for anyone interested in what is current, obscure or newsworthy. And Ilke's updates plus the Ask Alan section must have some value as an FAQ archive IF anyone is interested.

I may be wrong, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I am, but isn’t the Facebook total the number of connections to the few who contribute/join a page so that one member with a lot of friends can read as the number of their connections?

[XIII]

Trying to answer your question, Alan, that facebook page that somebody (I've tried to contact him but no answer yet) has created with your name:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alan-Davis/42774461630

has 2280 likes. That means that over two thousand registered users of Facebook, that is, almost 2300 individuals have "subscribed" to it. And all that with no promotion at all. Starting a facebook page about a well-known person/institution/anything and getting lots of people interested on that subject matter to subscribe to it is relatively easy. Even if, after starting it, you just leave it there with no activity whatsover.

Of course, the usual procedure is to put those kind of pages to use. Examples of official pages of comic artists with constant updates abound:

http://www.facebook.com/waltsimonson
http://www.facebook.com/pages/George-P% ... 5542437272
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Official- ... 1416896313
http://www.facebook.com/liketoddmcfarlane
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Darick-Ro ... 2950654080

Usualy those pages are managed either by the titular artist him or herself, or by a dedicated fan (like Mr. Platis or Ilke here) with the blessing of the artist. Managing a facebook page is super easy, probably easier than managing a message-board, and much more rewarding and useful nowadays.

The case of "your" fb page, just abandoned there to languish, happens when the titular person is not interested in facebook (which is totally respectable, of course), and I think that, despite the good intentions of whoever started it, it gets the opposite of its intended effect, instead of promoting and celebrating Alan Davis, it projects an image of neglect and carelessness, of a washed-up and forgotten artist instead of the actual reality of a prominent and active professional at the top of the industry. (Of course there's the option of telling the guy to take down the page and he'd have to comply).

And that's why I thought about starting this topic. This board is a perfectly cozy place for your fans thanks to Matt Platis, no doubt, and Ilke's update is great, but it would be much more useful in that facebook page where every new item would reach 2280 people instantly, instead of the (I assume) few dozens that still come here regularly.

[Alan Davis]

I’ve never wanted to be on the cutting edge of technological fashion, eager to own or master the newest gadget or toy. That isn’t because I’m a technophobe. I’ll admit to a degree of ‘if it ain’t broke’ sluggishness but If I’m convinced an innovation is something I can use I’ll give it a try. It is crucial that I feel my time is being well invested. For that reason I’ve never been remotely tempted to play a computer game.
From a purely personal perspective I don’t believe a facebook status of either active professional or a washed-up and forgotten artist is relevant to me. Those sorts of determinations are public opinion and I have no interest in seeking acclaim or having my ego stroked. If I was I’d have remained on X-Men rather than doing Killraven.
Now, while I can appreciate the perceived benefit of having a ‘captive audience ready to receive news updates’. I wonder if, when the mighty Comics Industry advertising and promotion machine is struggling in the declining market, can this really help. My philosophy has always been to concentrate on doing the best work I can and hope it will find a market. Not very businesslike perhaps but I’m a creator not an accountant.
I draw, write, create because that is what I enjoy. My only motivation to enter a public arena is in the hope I might encourage other to explore their own creative potential.

So, assuming the Facebook figures are accurate I have to ask... Why are so many people prepared to sign up to Facebook? What do they get out of it that is superior, in a substantive way, to a Website or Forum?

[XIII]

Well, having registered on facebook less than a year ago myself, after many years of hearing about it but not seeing the point, I can only offer poorly circular logic: the allure of it is exactly what you say, the fact that "so many people are prepared to sign up". For some reason, everybody is already there. I'm as baffled as anyone else.

Every individual person, and every institution/company/collective/whatever, it's like anyone who's alive and kicking is either on facebook or a hermit in a cave. Somehow, it's like it has become a surrogate of the internet itself, and everything else, websites, boards, blogs, even e-mail, even other "social networks", have fallen by the wayside or just become a sideshow to the main attraction: the facebook/twitter show.

I think it's also a kind of level playing field. Of course, you can pay them to publicize your page, and there's also spammers and fake accounts and other scumbags menacing to poison the well, but for the most part, I'd say that the popularity contest is fair. It doesn't matter if you're a big corporation or an individual artist, you get the likes you deserve according to your reputation and/or your efforts, and your official FB page is usually a pretty accurate reflection of your place in the "public arena".

Also, as you perceptively put it, it's the best way to have a ‘captive audience ready to receive news updates’, but isn't that the purpose of this very board? To keep a captive audience ready to receive Alan Davis news updates? The only difference is an isolated little message board is mostly an obsolete, outdated tool, while facebook is infinitely more efficient and relevant, because it's in fact just an immense all-embracing message board.

In other words, you come here once in a while, at your entire convenience, and interact with a handful of hardcore fans. You could do exactly the same, or whatever you'd want, on facebook, but your audience would be much much much bigger, and would probably include many of your colleagues and other professionals. Whether that dramatic increase in the number of people paying attention is something you'd cherish or abhor, it's entirely up to you.

[Matt Platis]

I am just not convinced that having a Facebook account will really make that much of a difference. Having 2,000 likes doesn't mean much. All it means is that 2,000 people clicked "like" on a webpage. I get tons of people who sign up for the forum and don't do anything further than that and by looking at that Facebook page, I can see the same behavior. Not much activity.

Don't get me wrong, I like Facebook and I do believe that social media can be used to help accumulate traffic. But I don't think it is totally necessary.

The case of "your" fb page, just abandoned there to languish, happens when the titular person is not interested in facebook (which is totally respectable, of course), and I think that, despite the good intentions of whoever started it, it gets the opposite of its intended effect, instead of promoting and celebrating Alan Davis, it projects an image of neglect and carelessness, of a washed-up and forgotten artist instead of the actual reality of a prominent and active professional at the top of the industry. (Of course there's the option of telling the guy to take down the page and he'd have to comply).

It sounds like you are saying that if you don't have a Facebook page (or keep one active) you must be washed up and not relevant. I definitely don't agree with that statement at all. I am a fan of Dave Lapham and I have "liked" his Facebook page but it rarely has any activity. It doesn't make me appreciate his work any less or think that he is not relevant. It's a matter of perspective.

In other words, you come here once in a while, at your entire convenience, and interact with a handful of hardcore fans. You could do exactly the same, or whatever you'd want, on facebook, but your audience would be much much much bigger, and would probably include many of your colleagues and other professionals. Whether that dramatic increase in the number of people paying attention is something you'd cherish or abhor, it's entirely up to you.

Now I am not famous or claim to be a celebrity of any kind. But I do have relationships; both personal and professional that are outside of Facebook. I don't need to have Facebook to make these relationships authentic. It's nice to have Facebook but I don't think it is crucial.

I have some other points I would comment on but I don't want to come off as being antagonistic.

[Alan Davis]

I agree with Matt. While I can appreciate your enthusiasm, XIII (Do you have shares in Facebook?) I’m not convinced that your analysis offers a substantive justification. It seems to me what you describe as circular logic is simply a fear of missing out. Like the old wartime story of people joining the end of a queue that disappears around a corner (with no idea where it leads) on the assumption there MUST be something good on offer because there is a long queue. I feel the assessment ‘... it's like anyone who's alive and kicking is either on Facebook or a hermit in a cave.’ is simplistically polarised and, in my experience, definitely untrue. I may well qualify as hermit-like from the long hours spent alone at the drawing board but I have a wife, kids, grandchildren, an extended family and friends in close proximity. Which may help explain my lack of presence in the ‘digital domain’ and my preference for conversing with real people when time allows.
I don’t know anywhere near enough about how either Facebook or the Forum function to offer more than a gut reaction based on my beliefs about people and their motivations. Firstly I suspect the difference in the degree of participation—in the effort required to join and interact-- does indeed limit interest to ‘... a handful of hardcore fans.’ (Though I think the simplistic label implies a bias that I’d dispute). I’d prefer to say the distinction is ‘quality over quantity’. Anyone actively participating being preferable to the idly curious—or, worse still, mongers in search of gossip. Second, it seems, from what you say XIII, that the only benefit of having a Facebook page revolves around celebrity for want of a better word. Seeking attention, validation, fame. ‘... your place in the "public arena"’. ‘...but your audience would be much much much bigger.'
I’m happy for my work to be promoted but I have no interest in the illusion of celebrity. My website and my contribution to Matt’s Forum is my way of making myself available to anyone who wants to contact me.

[Ilke]

I think the appeal of Facebook is that it serves as a one-stop shop, a way for people to log onto just one site and receive as many updates from friends/family/companies/products/writers/artists/astronauts/etc. as one's cerebral cortex will allow in one sitting. It's also the most penetrative way (currently) to send such updates online.

Do people value convenience over quality? It's entirely possible that many of them do, as the sheer volume of people on Facebook (and in the aisles of Costco) can attest to. But would I, personally, want to go to just one giant store to not only buy my groceries, but my electronics, apparel and reading material, too? No...but it doesn't mean I won't visit that giant store every so often.

Yes, having 2000 'Likes' on your Facebook page means that those people who 'Like' you will receive your updates instantaneously whenever they log onto FB. Will that translate to more sales for your product(s), more recognition, more connections, more re-connections, more celebrity? Quite possibly so. But specifically in the case of the Alan Davis Forum: is the Forum fulfilling its function as envisioned by Alan & Matt? As they've indicated, it is. And that's good enough for me to keep my 'Davis Updates' right where they are.

[Paul G]

I think the main appeal is the "one stop shopping" as Ilke put it. You can click on Facebook or Twitter and see constant updates and musing from a variety of sources. Having said that, I think a great deal of personal interaction is lost. I am on Facebook, however, it is just as easy to check out this forum for any of my Davis updates. I know Alan isn't super active online, but when he is I like the detailed answers he gives to questions posed to him. I think that type of discourse is lost in most social media. Quick replies and likes replace actual discussion of topics.

[Darren Taylor]

I totally understand that -real- life is what is important. Telling 3000 people, you had a cup of coffee, seems more than a trifle redundant.

However, if I may tkae the alternate stance, just for the perspective---I look at my kids and this generation (I'm 42) and see people having conversations in new ways.

I took my two eldest kids (16 & 13) on an archaeological dig and through FB could share, with my wife and youngest who weren't there, something as simple as a picture of us 'having a cup of coffee' in a beach-side bistro, so they could be involved. OR a picture/movie of them sifting spoil, looking for small finds!. I could use FB to share my thoughts on what it was like to take part in the dig or share photo's with a wider audience of family-and-friends, not just my wife. (The point there being you can decide how many and whom see the pictures or comments.)

There aren't many people in my family who have -ever- been on a dig site, so sharing this experience, whilst it happened was, I felt a great use of the tech. It was also, with modern tech, very easy. On my phone (and most modern phones) I could take a photo/movie and have the option to -share- to a social medium! Which means that an event can happen and it can be on FB or Twitter in real-time, with the originater expending two minutes of time!

I imagine that if you are a celeb or have an unusual job there are likely to be people who will find 'your' mundane to be actually very informative or even, exciting!

Social media can be used for propaganda, for sure, it can be used for adulation, it can be used for teaching, bitching, sharing and a few thousand other things too, I'm sure but essentially, If you have no need for it, there is no need for it.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, for a start I have no place to! What I'm hopefully doing is providing a perspective of someone who -does- use it and -does- get a benefit from it. That might be because my friends aren't all near me and that sometimes, my work takes me away!

Kind regards,

-Darren.

*Edit- Okay, I've sort of caught up with a number of post this-thread threads and don't want my post to appear as though I'm trying to persuade Alan into using FB. I point to my closing statement above.
PS. I loved this comment from Alan; "My only motivation to enter a public arena is in the hope I might encourage other to explore their own creative potential." because, it was he, John Byrne, Garcia Lopez and Paul Neary who made me want to be creative. Thanks.