Everything you do on the internet links to something else, or sends information to another person, or adds your profile to another list. Nothing has defined boundaries or finite barriers, and managing your “digital footprint” becomes increasingly difficult. On the other hand, using or not using these tools can completely alter the success of an organisation. Recently the Canberra Knights ice hockey folded, through the use of online tools the club has been able to obtain around $28,000 in crowd funding through mycause. When you think that a simple photo by Ellen Degeneres can get over 3 million retweets, the possibility to access a global audience is unbelievable.
In doing my final semster at uni, I now am involved in a couple of marketing subjects that have a strong focus on social media and internet usage. The way these subjects have been designed relies on the use of web based tools and social media to participate in coursework. This has had my head in a bit of a spin as nothing is structured the way I want it and everything is open to your own experience. I am now wondering if the modern need for immediacy and instant satisfaction ties into the way we now have to make sense of everything in our lives.
Social media is used in sport across every level. Promotion of teams and products, as well as players and competitions. Social media has created new opportunities to connect with fans and makes communication easier and cheaper than traditional radio or television mediums. Twitter is now becoming a huge tool along with facebook for managers and coaches to get information to their players and their fans, whether it is professional or social, these websites are becoming the way for teams to communicate. Athletes use twitter to increase their support numbers and promote their brandings.
Twitter and facebook take seconds to use and have long term access at almost no cost. It makes it possible to stay current with events and inform the wider community whats going on and what to expect. The size of the audience is unlimited and the opportunity to view the information either immediately or at a later date make it more desireable and easier to access.
I was reading a post by Alexis Lebedew, There’s More to Talent, and it reminded me of a previous conversation I had with him. Essentially the idea that people exactly meet their potential as otherwise they would have achieved more was the topic.
While a junior athlete still has the potential to achieve anything, by the end of their career this potential diminishes to what they have already achieved. In essence someone will meet their potential. The heights of their achievement however may be limited by their motivation, physical attributes, uncontrollable factors or any of an innumerate list of things that can hold someone back from ultimate success.
This poses an issue when it comes to talent identification however. If you dont know all of the extrinsic factors that are going to influence them, you cant accurately identify talent. Every coach knows that the biggest or best or strongest or most gifted wont necessarily be the one at the end of the day that wins, there are always other things that come into play. Coaches however have to weigh up the liklihood of someone being successful, and this is when the typical notion of potential come from. While someone may eventually meet their true potential, coaches explore athletes hypothetical potential looking at physiology, physchology and circumstance.
You never really know who will be the best, but you can make an educated guess at who is most likely.