The What Noise?

Video: Why People Share on Facebook

2012-03-02T21:33:00.001Z

Thanks to Facebook, not only for launching real-time analytics this week and a great new timeline function for brands, but for also hosting a rather fantastic conference in New York.

One of my favourite moments of the conference however was when they had a breakout session on not how people share, but why people share.

Watch live streaming video from fbmarketingtalks at livestream.com

We all fundamentally share unconsciously - we are hot-wired to share information, and we are fundamentally social. The information that we share is often information that can either bond us closer together. We are sharing a bit of our identity.

So the information that brands should be sharing on Facebook shouldn't come from a selfish place. It can't afford to. It has to come from a good place. You have to want to help, share and basically have a friendship with your audience, like, you know, a normal person would!

What do you think?

It's viral: Kevin Allocca on why videos go viral

2012-02-29T13:30:00.000Z

This is a great video from Youtube trends editor Kevin Allocca.

In it he crystallises three things that helps a video to go viral.

Tastemakers
Communities of participation (Reddit, Facebook, Twitter)
Participation (everybody can access, share and take part in it in some way)

What do you think? Do you have another reason that you think is as important as the three above?

When Infographics go bad!

2012-02-26T20:38:00.000Z

I love infographics. There, I said it.

In my job, for me, to be able to actually see the data presented visually a Very Big Deal to me. I collect and consume them, and I won't lie - it's because of the pretty colours, pictures and fonts. A good infographic is like a work of art. I even have a collection of them on Pinterest (next to my Horror Movie posters and spooky images, of course), which is maybe a bit too much(?)

Which is why it annoys me when companies looking to make a quick buck out of their product put together ones that are patently untrue. I feel really cheated - especially cheated in fact.

I sometimes feel that they try to shield really shoddy information behind a load of pretty images. Never forget that infographics are there for one reason, and one reason only: to promote the company that put it together. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but it can be, when the information is skewed for their benefit.

Which is why I was frustrated when I saw this one, carried out on by the digital agency Beyond.

What annoys me about it? The contradictory information.

It says that the rate of sharing per average Facebook, Twitter or G+ user will plateau over time, yet at the same time, it claims that more frictionless, and more personal sharing will increase.

Which one is it, then?

It's heavily-skewed towards pretty anecdotal information on what and how the way people might share, which is a noble aim, but if anything, I would say that given the fact that they say personal and frictionless sharing will increase, there is no evidence to suggest that sharing will decrease at all.

Over time, sharing to social networks will mature. It, however, will not plateau, or even shrink. We, as humans, are constantly evolving and constantly sharing, which is why we are drawn to networks like Facebook, Twitter, G+, Reddit, StumbleUpon etc.

Sharing provides validation, which is a powerful, primal feeling. We all live to be validated by others, as well as ourselves. If we share widely, we are seen as influential. We are hot-wired to need this sort of validation, this 'Leader of the Pack' mentality.

The more widely we share, the more likes, +1's, comments and retweets that we get, the more we do it. In my opinion, this will not change anytime soon, but I'm open to counter arguments!

It's Viral: Dergin Tokmak "Dancing on Crutches"

2012-02-23T13:00:00.000Z

I love this video. It's currently burning up the front page on Reddit, and with good reason...

Why did it go viral? Well, as with most viral videos, the reasons are pretty simple: it's cool, inspiring, and has a great backstory.

From The Daily Dot:

Cirque du Soleil performer Dergin Tokmak lost most of the control of his legs as a child after contracting polio. But that never stopped his passion for dancing.

Sometimes, life can seem pretty bleak - especially when you are sat in front of your computer all day. Then something like this pops into your inbox, and you immediately feel uplifted. This guy didn't let his disability get in the way of being a fucking fantastic dancer. And that's a great story.

Hats off to you Dergin - keep on dancing.

Breaking News on Twitter part 2: authority is everything

2012-02-20T13:39:00.001Z

Many of us were shocked by the sad death of Whitney Houston last Sunday. The news reverberated around the planet, and this was reflected in the amount of buzz on Twitter.

But when does a story like this go global? What causes it to go global, or trend on Twitter?

Many people suggest that breaking the news on Twitter leads to extra kudos from the community. But in fact the news only really took off on Twitter after it was broken on Associated Press’s Twitter account - a verified source.

Whilst breaking news will always happen on Twitter, the citizen journalist lacks one thing that traditional news rooms and media outlets have - effective social media guidelines.

They may sound like a constriction to some, but in fact, without these guidelines, where would geniune, verified news come from on social media?

The ability to break stories will always be important - but remember that authority is everything, and people will always look to mainstream media for reference and confirmation.

It's Viral: Sad French Bulldog Listens to Adele

2012-02-16T14:02:00.002Z

This video has surged in popularity since Adele's six awards at The Grammy's.

Pets are always popular on Youtube (well, they're popular with humans, full stop), and mixing this with Adele given her current level of fame means that this video was bound to go stratospheric.

Animals going viral? Who would have guessed?

Twittering breaking stories: tweet first, or ask questions later?

2012-02-13T22:22:00.001Z

There has been a lot of conversation and focus this week on the constantly-evolving role that social media ties in with traditional broadcast and print mediums.

The BBC and Sky are asking their reporters to not Tweet news before it’s filed on their official mediums, or before it hits the airwaves. That one one level may seem constricting. But is it necessary to protect their reputation?

Sky News, for example, argue that this means that the information that you share on a branded account is subject to the same editorial concerns as any other piece of journalism, and unsubstantiated rumours and opinion shouldn’t be associated with their brand. I can see their point.

I would also say that I get certain commentators points about not being able to compete the with BANG! NEWS! NOW! echo-chamber culture that we live in. But there is a very big difference between being first, and being right.

I know that some beat reporters and journalists are concerned that not being able to retweet an influential source of news that doesn’t belong to your brand shackles them, rather than protects them. But think about it - if you were a Fox anchor, and CNN broke a news story before you, do you craft your own response, or do you just retweet their content?

Here’s what the BBC had to say about it.

“We prize the increasing value of Twitter, and other social networks, to us (and our audiences) as a platform for our content, a newsgathering tool and a new way of engaging with people,” the BBC’s social media editor told The Guardian. “Being quick off the mark with breaking news is essential to that mission. But we’ve been clear that our first priority remains ensuring that important information reaches BBC colleagues, and thus all our audiences, as quickly as possible – and certainly not after it reaches Twitter.”

Personally, I think that this is a great opportunity really work on the online content that you offer.

We all know that the BBC produces online content that is the envy of the world, thanks in part to the unique way they are funded. But it also means that they have a responsibility to report truthfully, and with integrity - something that is not certain from other sources (citizen journalists, political bloggers etc). So I can understand their stance on social media, which on the whole I think is pretty open and fair.

So yes, whilst breaking stories is important on Twitter, you will never be able to be as quick as the citizen journalists. You will never be quicker than the man on the street in the middle of the riot with his camera out.

Look to provide insight. Look to find or produce stories and updates that people will read because they are compelling, not just because they are there. 140 characters can break news, but used correctly, it can be the gateway to a wealth of engaging content

Can you beat Twitter when it comes to breaking news? Yes. But try to remember that it’s the story itself that does it, not just you.

A3CKH2AJ7R8Y

2012-02-09T22:57:00.001Z

A3CKH2AJ7R8Y

It's Viral: Collapsing Cooling Towers

2012-02-09T22:19:00.002Z

This is a neat little video by renewable energy company Ecotricity, although I can't help but feel a little sorry for the cooling towers, which you aren't meant to, as they represent the Big Bad Energy Companies.

Still, highly shareable, so expect this to pop up in your inbox, G+ or Facebook feed shortly.

Thanks to Laughing Squid.

It's Viral: Clint Eastwood and Chrystler

2012-02-08T09:08:00.001Z

You may remember a while back that I mentioned that the key to a great viral phenomenon was telling a great story.

Well, here's my favourite one of the year so far - and yes, it does help that you having Clint Eastwood in it.

If you haven't seen it yet, sit back and enjoy...

Case Study: They Made.Com people angry!

2012-02-05T16:10:00.001Z

Here is an example of how not to use social media if you are a brand...

At the moment, we are 'doing up' our house, so to speak (read more about that here), and we are buying a metric tonne of homeware, paint and furniture. It's expensive, but ultimately worth it, as spending a bit of money on your house shows that you actually give a shit about yourself. We don't own too much, but the stuff we do own, we like to be nice.

One of the biggest purchases we have made over the past few weeks was this delightful sofa...

We got it from Made.com, and Ana (like the amazing home improvement geek that she is) wrote a blog post about what a great find it was.

The delivery date was an estimated thirteen weeks, which is a bit long, but with Made you pay for the fact that you get nice products directly from the designers, and you don't have to go to DFS and get hassled by a man with a fat tie, white socks and too much hair gel.

So we were prepared to wait. And wait we did. Ana kept on checking the due date on the Made.com site, and saw that, as of Wednesday (February 1st), the sofa was still running to an estimated delivery time - which you'd think would have at least been confirmed by then.

So Ana decided to get in contact. And that's where I feel it's fitting to hand over to her, in an excerpt from her blog post:

So we ordered the bloody sofa and were told that we had an estimated delivery date of the 21st of February. Fine, no probs, we new it would take a while as like they say on their site, items are made to customer demand. Come the end of January I checked the delivery date again. Still estimated. I tried to click through to the so called Real Time Tracking System they have in place for 'every step of the way', and it just took me back to their website. Ok, again no probs, I'll just ask them when they are able to confirm the delivery date so I know when this sofa is going to be: in my house for sure/ I can make sure I work from home/ we can move the current sofa we have.

So I took to their fairly active Twitter account and asked them. (*As note here I just want to add that made.com don't have a phone number).

"@madedotcom Hi! I have an estimated delivery date for my sofa, I was wondering when this will be confirmed? It's currently estimated for the 21st Feb, so will I hear closer to the time? Thanks."

"@anahavana Please email contact@made.com, thank you"

Ok, well that's a bit annoying as surely at least try to answer my query, but whatever, I'll email you.

So I emailed the same question, both from my email account and via their online contact form. I waited. I waited until closing time (5pm) and nothing. So I waited again this morning, surely they would be checking their customer emails first thing and drop me a quick like just to reassure me that they are looking in to it? Nada.

Then I got pissed off.

I know that email and social channels have made us all (or maybe just me) more impatient with response times and I know that I am guilty of being frustrated when people don't get back to me straight away via email. But this is a business! They have £900 of my money! They should check their fucking emails! Not only that but I could see that they'd been active on their Twitter and Facebook channels, so someone was obviously there checking them. So I tried Twitter again asking if they could reply to my email. Completely ignored. I tried a few more times. Again nothing apart from a tweet promoting a new item of furniture. So I tried Facebook. I wrote on their wall, they deleted it! I wrote on their wall again. Deleted straight away!

And that's where I came into the story.

I tweeted about Made.com too, and promptly got a response, not from them, but another annoyed customer by the name of James Pollard, who sent me the following testimonial:

Back in November 2011, my wife and I ordered a sofa and a chair from Made.com. We’d been in our new house for about a month and had gotten tired of sitting on an office chair and a kick-stool to eat dinner off of an overturned cardboard box. After a LOT of trawling around online for something that looked stylish and affordable, we came across two items on Made that looked ideal. Obviously the 8-10 week turnaround time between ordering and delivery is a long wait, but we figured it’d be worth iteventually.

Somewhat unexpectedly then, my wife received an e-mail from Made just a week later, saying that the sofa we ordered would be delivered in the next couple of weeks. This was even better – we’d have something to sit on over Christmas! So we both took a half-day off work to ensure that we’d be around to take delivery of it; rather annoyingly, it turned up at exactly the same time that I left the house and she arrived, but I don’t hold that against Made.

However, within half an hour, I’d had a phone call from my wife: “The sofa’s trashed.” Trashed how? It had two tears along the top and back of the upholstery and on one corner the material was coming away from the frame. In addition to that, the four chrome-plated legs were battered beyond belief, each harbouring several dents and scratches. We immediately suspected that it had been a return that they’d had in their warehouse that matched our order. So my wife went onto Made’s website and used their in-page contact form (no e-mail addresses or phone numbers available) to voice her displeasure. This was at around 1pm that afternoon, but she didn’t get a reply until just after 5.30pm that day – presumably as the operator answering was just out of the door.

As expected, they asked for photos, which were sent over, but we knew wouldn’t be looked at until the next morning.

The next day, a reply comes through that offers a full refund and they’d come and pick the sofa up or we could keep it as it is and they’d give us a part refund or some Made.com vouchers. My wife was not impressed. Even if the sofa was pushed up against a wall or into a corner, the damage would be visible to anyone. We had to ask for a replacement to be sent in addition to this one being picked up. There was no immediate reply to that. In fact it was after a few days, my wife posted a question about her query on Made.com’s Facebook page; she thought someone would have to see that, as the page is obviously managed quite routinely, making mention as it does of all the press attention they get and the awards that are showered upon them. It was deleted within minutes.

I posted a similar comment on their Facebook page – again, it was quickly removed from view, so I Tweeted them. “Customer services will be in contact with you shortly!” came the reply. However, ‘in contact with you shortly’ in Made’s vocabulary is several hours later and by e-mail.

Firstly, James and his wife have clearly been mucked around a lot by Made. I wouldn't have received this far-from-glowing review unless my girlfriend and I had Tweeted about it.

How, how HOW? In this day and age can a company honestly expect people to be satisfied with a customer service (and Twitter and Facebook are customer service channels, whether you like it or not) channel that doesn't include a way to directly contact them?

Contact forms on websites are seen by many as impersonal, and a they lack transparency. In this day and age, it's the internet equivalent of posting a letter - you don't really have a clear idea of when, or if it's going to arrive at the final location.

With social media, not only have we reached a level of digital maturity now to expect the company to be on there, but they are also expected to go above and beyond.

Some people say that this is impatient, but it isn't. Look at it another way: say you went into a restaurant, and waited ages for your food to turn up. You want to find out why this is, so you call the waiter over. He ignores you. But that's ok, maybe he didn't hear you... He's busy making sure that the new customers are seated properly, and they can look through the wonderful-looking menu. So you approach the waiter, and try to ask him poitely where the food is. He looks you up and down, curls his lip, and puts his hand over your mouth. And then he walks away. Your food turns up eventually, but you vow never to return to the place.

That's the experience Ana, myself, and lots of other people have experienced from Made.com. Here are a few grabs from their Facebook wall/online showroom:

There you can see a load of responses to Made.com's rather slovenly customer services, along with responses from the Made that were clearly a panicked response to being caught deleting posts.

Let me get this clear: if you delete posts on Facebook, you are not deleting the problem. In fact, you are creating an echo chamber for discontent.

If you care enough to find a brand on Facebook and Twitter to ask a question, you can be damn sure that you're going to want a reply when you find them. How would you feel if you weren't being listened to?

Fortunately, this story does have a happy-ish ending.

Ana was contacted by Justin from Made.com on Thursday, apologising for the issues relating to the delivery time of the sofa (which will now be arriving in mid-March), and made promises to have a phone-line installed in their office (which will be picked up 'WITHIN TWO RINGS!'), and have a dedicated customer support email address.

They have also apologised (in a way) on their Facebook page below:

So all's well that ends well, we hope. I'll let you know when the sofa turns up, as I'm sure you're on the edge of your seat.

And I hope Made.com have learnt from the customer service snafu they made this week.

I'm sure some great people work there. But if you are a brand, and you're reading this blog, I only want you to take away one thing.

Social media is not a broadcast marketing channel to peddle your wares - it's a two-way communication channel, it's an echo chamber, and if you ignore somebody on there, it's like ignoring somebody in a crowded room - you may not want to hear the bad things said about you, but others will. So be prepared to act appropriately, and most importantly, LISTEN.

I don't care if I frictionless share...

2012-01-31T21:25:00.000Z

I think that quite a lot has been made of the frictionless sharing debate. A bit too much, in fact.

This article comes mostly from a Tweet, and the ensuing debate between Bobbie Johnson and Meg Pickard, two people I respect a great deal.

Two interesting* takes on why frictionless sharing isn't awful: bit.ly/whV6do and bit.ly/z0MRYM (*I don't entirely agree)
— Bobbie Johnson (@bobbiejohnson) January 31, 2012

I'm not going to wade into what was a minor kerfuffle - but what I am going to say is that, broadly speaking, I'm with Meg on this one.

Frictionless sharing, whilst it may be annoying to some people, is very easy to filter out of your Facebook experience.

The way that I see it, your experience on Facebook is a lot like your experience with a computer/phone/TV. To get the best experience out of it, you have to customise.

Your information is currency on Facebook, and they don't want to lose you. They have unveiled a whole host of options so you can not only 'turn down the volume' on friends that have certain apps installed (Spotify, Pinterest, The Guardian), you can also choose to read the terms and conditions of these apps and choose not to install them yourself.

Personally, I think that frictionless sharing, within reason, is great! I think you should have an option of what you share, and I still believe that even though you are travel within the realms of the open graph, you should still be able to traverse the web for content at will. I think the Guardian app on Facebook has been a fantastic success, when I click on a link, I'd like to still have the option to read and engage with the article as it was intended - on the site.

That's why I like the way Yahoo! News have adopted it. I like frictionless sharing, but I like to be nudged every time it happens...

Is that pedantic? Am I missing the point?

Either way, I like sharing what I'm listening to on Spotify. I'm not embarrassed about listening to Hall & Oates and Toto as well as Pavement and The Smiths. I like the fact that I could be recommending a new band to somebody on Facebook whilst I'm listening to it. It's great!

Frictionless sharing is neither good nor bad - it's either your thing, or it isn't. You have a choice to be involved, and there's nothing arcane about it, unless you consent to give your details to a organ-farming app.

Thank you!

2012-01-28T11:11:00.001Z

A couple of brief, though heartfelt thank you's are in order here.

Firstly, a big thank you needs to go to Mark Brooks of Social Networking Watch for a great interview and write up on his site, which I think you should definitely check out and add to your RSS.

And last, but definitely not least, a massive thank you to all of the new readers that have ventured to my blog over the past year. In fact, everybody that's ever read, commented, shared and liked one of my blog posts.

Introducing... CENSORED Tweets?

2012-01-28T10:59:00.000Z

Twitter have always been watching what you write, and censoring accordingly. Now they are making that process more transparent, and it's got the web all in a tizzle.

Uprisings, good or bad, have been shared, and reacted to in realtime on Twitter since the services inception in 2006 - and look! The world hasn't spun off of it's axis. So why the fuss now?

Here's the rub: If your government doesn't like what you have to write about them, Twitter will help them to censor it. Just one step towards keeping the world a safer, less litigious, more profitable place for Twitter? Yes and no.

Censorship of any kind is nearly always a bad thing. Where conversation is stifled, it creates a vacuum. You cannot stop a conversation - it will just shift to another medium.

But at least now Twitter are tacitly giving people the heads up that their service shouldn't be used to plan or organise armed insurrection. That's fine - it just means the kids here will go back to BBM, and elsewhere they'll go back to their closed networks and secret groups. One network's loss of relevancy is another's gain.

Twitter is a reaction to the world around us - it is not the means for mass protest, but I will always be concerned that governments will try to censor information about events and policies that the public in a certain country should know about. I'm not a tabloid journalist, but I believe that authority is there to be challenged, and lies are there to be rooted out. Creating a reverse Iron Curtain on Twitter could be bad for user trust on the platform.

I'm not arguing that Twitter can't be an echo chamber for cretins, racists and the like. But that's life - if you want free speech, that means everybody gets a voice - no exceptions. So I'm opposed to the censorship, but if Twitter want to stay viable, sadly they may have to relinquish some of their taboo-breaking legacy, and tuck their shirt in, so to speak.

It's a shame in my opinion, but hey - that's the path they've got to take, rightly or wrongly, if they want to play nice with governments and make money.

'People will always need...'

2012-01-22T20:04:00.002Z

Pic by Nico Ordozgoiti

You get some really funny ideas in the shower.

I started thinking about Kodak, and it's sad fall from grace, largely caused by it's inability to be able to pivot quickly enough, and embrace the digital age.

A previously unassailable brand titan, brought down to earth by a variety of factors.

But the one reason that I was thinking about was the one sentence that we all use in our everyday lives without really thinking about it's relevance: 'People will always need *insert item here*'

I'm sure we all heard people use that phrase for a variety of reasons. It's probably not given you an cause for concern - or them. But it's a very dangerous sentence.

It's the same kind of thinking that got the musc industry into so much trouble. After all, people will always need CDs, won't they? They'll always want physical products.

People will always need DVD's, won't they? After all, it's the experience of holding onto that little shiny plastic cover that we'll always cherish.

Let's get one thing straight: the only things we are hot-wired to do as people is to survive, socialise, and maintain relationships.

Businesses saw the internet, and assumed that they could apply the same principles to it as they could to the 'real' world of cash registers, queues and physical products. They should have seen the fall coming.

The internet has enabled disruption of previously unassailable markets. It has changed the landscape, and it has been responsible for innovations and developments in technology, business and freedom that were previously unheard of.

For every Kodak, there is an Instagram. For every HMV, there is an iTunes. For every iTunes, there is a Spotify. For every netbook, there's a tablet. For every Myspace, there's a Facebook. For every Facebook, there's a... Well, who knows?

Never assume that people will always want, or even need your product or idea. Be prepared to change, pivot and remain agile.

If you don't, you will end up going the way of the dinosaurs, or the Gutenberg press - fantastic to look at, but ultimately museum-bound.

Neat Twitter visualisation - but is it really relevant?

2012-01-17T22:58:00.002Z

Today I stumbled across this really interesting visualisation of the 2012 Republican nomination race.

This is the type of data visualisation that I like to see - major props should go to Hotspots.io for taking an already interesting race, and placing it's context within the world of social media.

However, I do have a couple of caveats.

Twitter is a reaction to the world around us. The fact that the debate was a popular topic on Twitter was mostly down to the fact that it had been heavily covered in the press, and featured on television. This is not down to Twitter generating it's own news and blabber. This story would have been popular in the pre-digital, pre-social age. Think Kennedy vs. Nixon. That is a confrontation that still echoes down the ages. Twitter wasn't around back then, but basic human interaction was. We should marvel at how readily accessible the information is - but we shouldn't believe that this story wouldn't have generated the same response if it had been broken pre-Twitter.
Sentiment is valuable. Whilst it's great that we can see how many people are tweeting about these stories, the valuable information is how Twitterers are actually responding to these stories. After all, a crowd may clap as one, but each individual could have a different reason for doing so. I know how many people Tweet about the brands that I work with. What I work hard at is digging into that top-level data and finding out what they think! Opinions are like arseholes - everybody's got one.

Still - it's a nice, smart visualisation of top-level data, and I'd be interested in seeing what else Hotspots has to offer a serious social media manager/community editor.

Search plus your world? What's so bad about that?

2012-01-12T21:24:00.001Z

I've been reading about and following the whole 'social signals' discussion for some time. In fact, last May I wrote a very critical blog post of Google's social search features.

It was a bit of a swipe, and now that I've had time to reflect on it, and actually use social search, both as a person and as a Community Editor, and I now realise that, whilst it may be a bit creepy to some people, it's actually quite handy to see search results that my friends have shared with me.

And now Google has revealed it's real trump card in the battle for dominance of the social web (and that's what it is) - Search, plus your world. And I can see why Twitter are so pissy about it.

They missed the boat.

Twitter, I'm sure, could have been involved in this latest venture. Google will have known how popular social signals from Twitter were when they had a deal with Twitter (which expired last June), and with Plus now starting to gain traction amongst users, they felt that now was the time to reveal their masterplan.

You see, the one thing that social media has taught companies is that people basically like to listen to their friends, and organisations that they trust. In that order. If my girlfriend goes to me 'Hey, do you fancy grabbing a pizza? I know this wicked place around the corner', I'd be bang up for it. However, if Pizza Hut said the same thing to me about one of their restaurants, I'd be highly dubious.

Search as we know it will slowly morph from being a system run on complex algorithms into a living, breathing recommendation network. SEO will still count - after all, a friend's recommendation of a Youtube video won't do you much good if your roof is leaking at 2am in the morning.

However, if you want to know how to fix a plug socket without exploding, I'd much rather click on a link to a useful piece of information from my friend who's had the same problem than have to go to another website, conduct another search, and then fumble around for information. That may sound lazy to you, and to a certain extent, it is. But whilst the internet is fantastic for asking and answering the difficult questions posed by society, it is also a place you connect with your friends, and hang out.

In a fragmented, often lonely society, having just that little steer in the right direction by a friends recommendation can only be a good thing.

And you know what? If you don't like the feature, you can go and use Yahoo, Bing, Ask or the plethora of other sites. That is until Bing's partnership with Facebook finally takes off here in the UK.

Facebook pay-to-play for brands? Not really...

2012-01-05T20:51:00.000Z

I read a really interesting article this week from Simply Zesty, which is a blog that I often enjoy reading. That sounds like I'm damning it with faint praise, but I'm not!

It was about Facebook increasingly becoming a crowded market for brands, which is difficult to break through unless you have the finance to fund paid ads.

To a certain extent I agree - but once again it depends on the type of engagement metrics you are looking at.

If you are looking at responses, sheer number of fans and all-singing, all-dancing campaigns, then yes, you are always going to be at a disadvantage to brands such as Converse and Nike.

But that is not to say that a well-crafted status update, a timely picture, or interesting link will not garner equally proportionate results.

That's the key in this - proportion.

There is no denying that Facebook is an increasingly crowded market place. Unless you have a large marketing platform, it is hard to add thousands upon thousands of fans. But before you dash for the credit card and sign up for ads, think about what you actually want to get out of your brand presence.

Do you want to get people through the door? Then maybe start small - turn the people that like your page into advocates. Many businesses simply give up if they initially don't get the response they want. But keep at it.

The people that have sought you out on Facebook, have searched for your name, have seen the prompt in your shop/place of business/mail-out. These are the interested parties you need to engage before chasing the promo-freaks and prize pigs.

Go for the meaningful fans and build a relationship with them - that's where you'll find the true value.

2012 predictions? Not here!

2011-12-30T17:37:00.000Z

I've been doing this blog for just over two and a half years now (not that I'm counting or anything). Over that period of time, I've seen a lot of trends in social media and technology come and go. At the end of the year, everybody likes to wind down by publishing their year-end lists of the sites they've enjoyed using over the past year, and what they think will be big next year.

Nine times out of ten, the experts are wrong. If I made a prediction, I'd probably be wrong too. Anything could happen in the tech world. None of us thought that Google+ would be here with us this year.

So what I thought I'd do is let you know the two 'things' that I'm really looking forward to using more of in 2012.

Pinterest: I've been using Pinterest for the best part of about eight months now. I was introduced to it by my girlfriend, who loves to trawl the internet for cool bits and bobs for our house. It seems to be getting a lot of tech press at the moment, and good for them. The idea behind the site, people sharing their tastes, what they like and what they'd want in their home/wardrobe/bed etc, is a really cool one. It provides a great place to store all of those pictures you love without stealing the link juice from the site that originally posted it. It's going to be even better when it's fully open, which is what I hope will happen soon.

I've noticed a but of an upturn in account activity around me in the past week or so - more of my friends, male and female, are starting to use it.

I love using the site, and the app. Although the fact that I use it mainly to post creepy pictures and horror movie posters may mean that I'm not really using it in the same way that the majority of people are (house decorating, clothes and homewear-hunting). But I love it, and I get a real kick out of people re-pinning my pins.

Follow me on Pinterest here if you like.

Path: Path is one of those handy little apps that you don't really think you need at first. But the fact that It only allows you to have up to 150 friends (Dunbar's number) on there is a massive plus, alowing you to me more selective, and prioritise meaningful relationships over transient, 'fast' friends.

It's helpful, clutter-free, and it looks good. I can post to my Twitter, Facebook and Foursquare accounts simultaneously. I don't have any friends on there yet, but I use it as a way to post to multiple platforms without seeing noise from my Twitter and Facebook feed. One way? Nope, just a time-saver. I can still reply using the Facebook and Twitter apps. The clean look and feel of Path just makes it really pleasurable to use.

I know this is a simple post, but I also know there is a lot of guff out there at the moment on which sites are going to be big, and which aren't. I just thought I'd share some of what I like!

Hope you all have a happy new year's eve. See you in 2012.

How Social Media Is ruining our minds - Infographic

2011-12-15T16:08:00.001Z

Just thought that I'd share this interesting infographic with you on the apparent affects of social media (although I'd just argue mass culture, rather than singling out social media sites).

Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below!

Courtesy of AllTwitter

The future is in the niche: follow-up

2011-12-13T21:48:00.001Z

Just wanted to write a quick note to direct you towards a noteworthy response to my 'Social Niche' article yesterday.

It's by Alexis Sukrieh, and it's called Social Web, so what?

When Alexis isn't blogging, he's a Perl hacker that works at a fascinating online marketing technology companies - Weborama

Thanks Alexis.

The social future is niche: people are finding it now

2011-12-12T21:37:00.000Z

I had a really interesting conversation with one of my bosses at work today. WAIT! COME BACK!

No, seriously, I did. We were talking about the general assumption that Google, Diaspora or any other recently-launched social network faced an almost futile task: To take on Facebook, and WIN.

Let me get this straight - that's not going to happen. And these networks know that.

In the tech world, and the world at large, it's very easy to get carried away by the big numbers. By the fact that Facebook has close to 800 million active users. That it has over 900 million 'objects' to interact with. That your mum, and all of your friends are on there.

That's brilliant, and that's exactly what Mark Zuckerberg set out to achieve.

But that's not necessarily what the other networks want.

Google+ has a significant user base - heavily skewed towards slightly older, affluent males who like to talk about technology and the things they love - even some of the things we don't want to bore our friends and family about. It's somewhere for people to hang out, and it's baked into every element of your Google experience.

Here's a neat breakdown courtesy of Flowtown:

When I log onto it, I'm always guaranteed to read something interesting - whether it's from a friend of mine, or an expert in the tech field. Or Britney Spears.

That, in my opinion, makes it more of a spiritual competitor, if anything, to Twitter. And more of a complimentary tool in Google's armoury. It will be successful for completely different reasons to Facebook or Twitter.

With Diaspora, it may be far too early to tell, and it may be my slightly-sheltered view of things, but the site is fundamentally open source, and you own your own data.

See the concept behind Diaspora explained here:

Given the massive numbers of people still flocking to and using Facebook, it doesn't seem like the vast majority of people really mind that much about giving over information about their interests. Either that or they're ignorant of the fact, which isn't really a crime.

But some people will decide that they would prefer to handle their own data. To be a node rather than an energy source. To control your data and still interact without it feeling like a transactional relationship. Because your close relationships aren't transactional - you share everything, on different levels, and rarely for financial gain outside of work.

Now you have options. And that's really where social media starts to get interesting. It's not just about Facebook. It's not just about Twitter. It's not just about Google+. People have reached a degree of maturity with regards to social, and what they want to share. We are now moving onto the next level - who we want to share with.

And it's not always with your friends and family - they'd be bored of half of the tech shit I post. So I try and find communities to share with - Diaspora, Google+, LinkedIn and Twitter.

These networks know that, and they are not looking to compete with one another. Yes, they all need to make money, but once you achieve mass adoption as a network, you often have to compromise on your vision a bit more. I'm not sure that the guys at Diaspora (for example) would want that.

With social, the future is definitely niche - and I think that's where the smart people (not money) are going.

Facebook - if you don't like the monster, then don't feed it!

2011-12-06T21:18:00.001Z

I was going to write a big, long-winded review of the BBC programme Mark Zuckerberg: Inside Facebook.

But I'm not, because that wasn't really what I set this blog up to do.

I started writing it, and it seemed like, well, WORK.

And even though technology and relationships is my job, it never feels like work to me. Just a series of challenges that I do my best in.

Watch it yourself and let me know what you think. Here are mine...

The programme had it's good points, and Emily Maitlis is a pretty cool person, but she took a typical journalist's angle towards Facebook - the tired 'is Facebook a bit evil' stance.

At one point, Emily sat on a dreadful sofa and went through the Facebook advertising process.

You know the one - it helps companies find out how many dog lovers in Manchester like New Order, or how many men in the Greater London area use chest weaves more than twice a week.

Somehow though, Emily endeavoured to make the whole process sound like some sinister data siphoning information - unintentionally at times making the documentary sound like something Chris Morriss would have dreamed up.

At one point, I had to check under my keyboard for a voyeuristic cyber elf with a USB stick and an envelope bound for Palo Alto.

Let me clear this one up for you Emily. Facebook is NOT evil. But it is a business.

It's one that I don't always agree with, or enjoy using (hello, old Facebook Insights) all of the time. And it is true to extent that there are companies on there that don't necessarily play by the rules, or have any respect for their users. You only have to take a look at the number of companies currently breaking Facebook's promotion guidelines to see how much some of these companies care about having meaningful conversations with their audience.

But that doesn't mean that the majority of the people behind Facebook brand pages are subhuman social media vampires, sucking the fun out of your news feed. If you find the information that you get from a page. In fact, most of the ones I met are either really savvy, nice people, or a bit thick.

And Facebook? Well, they want a transactional relationship with you. They rely on it to power their site, and it works.

The only relationship that Facebook has with you is a transactional one. It gives you the tools to share information with your friends about the world around you, and in return, you give them the data you choose to share on and off the site (choose being the operative word here.

There is nothing inherently evil about that - it's the nature of their business, and although they have made some mistakes in the past (Beacon springs to mind), they're not dumping oil into the sea, hacking your phones or smashing your kneecaps in over a high-interest loan.

I get people's concerns about their data, and the supposed sanctity of it. But if you really, really care about your data, then there are now options out there - Diaspora and Twitter have simpler, more open attitudes towards the data you share with them. Join them!

Remember, if you keep feeding this monster that you are so afraid of, then it will only get bigger.

Workplace bullying in Silicon Valley: now acceptable?

2011-11-29T18:00:00.000Z

Pic Credit: Some rights reserved by trix0r

I'm feeling a bit rough at the moment.

Maybe that's going to influence the tone of this post.

But frankly I don't give a shit.

I was on the tram to work this morning when I read an article from The Artist Formerly know as Mr. Techcrunch, Mike Arrington.

The article - called touchingly enough STARTUPS ARE HARD. SO WORK MORE, CRY LESS, AND QUIT ALL THE WHINING (all in caps) - really hit a raw nerve in me.

I know I'm only human, and we all have raw nerves and sensitive areas, but the jist of this article is that Arrington seems to think that regardless of the perks of a job, your bosses are entitled to work you to an early grave so that they can get their vision off the ground, especially in Silicon Valley, where you go to, as the article suggests 'Make a dent in the universe' (pretentious much?)

I'm sorry Michael - but that's rubbish.

This is exactly the type of management bullshit that people have been spouting for years. 'We pay your wages, therefore we can tear into you whenever we want' school of management. The 'my product is more important than your sleep pattern' approach.

In the wake of the numerous eulogies to Steve Jobs, nobody was short-sighted enough to say that he didn't bully subordinates, make people feel small, arbitrarily fire employees, and generally act badly at times.

Despite all of the great products he brought to the market, the man still had his faults. And I wouldn't like to work for somebody like that.

I have had experience with this before. One place where I used to work (which, as per usual, I won't name) had a practice once a financial quarter called 'fuck off Friday' by the staff. People would come into work, and be summoned to the office midway through the day, and told their position would be made redundant. That counted as their consultation, and they were told to clear their desks and leave right away. It was like something out of Logan's Run. One of my good friends that worked in mobile development was summoned into one of these meetings, and basically told to leave the building. And that was the end of our mobile division at that time.

Besides being staggeringly short-sighted, this was a cruel practice that served to do nothing but appease shareholders, and improve the company's bottom line (which was sagging quite badly).

When you work for a company run by a visionary, you should always be aware that the person in question doesn't really want to share his riches with you. He doesn't really want your name anywhere on the site, or even on your headstone. They're out to make a name for themselves, and they see you as a resource to be used until you are spent. You're spent? Then you're out.

So my advice? Go in there, work your hours (and work hard, be the best, etc.), then leave. And don't be the person that died at their desk, that is little more than an uncredited extra in a film of somebody else's life.

Having a good idea, having vision, and having drive is not a crime. Neither, really, is bullying. But don't do it. It's cruel, and it makes you look like an arsehole. Actually, it just makes you an arsehole. Don't do it.

It's the entrepreneurs that set up the company who should have the sleepless nights - not you.

After all, nobody really wants 'died working' written on their graveston. Remember: you can't take all of those complimentary organic juices with you either.

Twitter Stealth Marketing - @girlbehindsix

2011-11-16T19:30:00.000Z

This Wendy's Twitter promotion is great - although good luck in migrating their fans away from this promotion now that it's over.

This is one of the problems with stealth marketing campaigns on social platforms - I've admired the thinking, but the execution is nearly always poor. It is very easy with the right marketing mix to get a lot of fans and engagement on a certain Twitter account or Facebook page, but then what do you do when the promotion is over?

I've spend a lot of time migrating pages this year, and let me tell you something - it's not easy. If you get at least one percent of the audience to follow you across, then you have done a good job.

Also, following accounts on social platforms is not down to an 'either/or' decision. People aren't going to actively unlike or unfollow a campaign account, they're just going to like or follow the page that you are trying to direct them to - or not.

Remember - whether it's a like or follow, you are still asking people to work. If you are a brand, remember that you are not their friend. You are not at the top of their list of contacts when they change their email address, phone number or address details. By asking them to move accounts, you are asking them to do something that they would only normally do for their friends. If you are doing your job right, you won't just be marketing to sheep that blindly click and share everything you say (although I'm sure that a few Community Managers would prefer it that way), so give them something - a thank you, or even an improvement to what you are offering.

My first Social Media disaster

2011-11-12T21:23:00.001Z

This week, I was lucky enough to be involved in my first social media shit storm.

Why lucky?

Well, it was brilliant because I actually felt like I was in the middle of something that many so-called social media experts claim to be so adept at avoiding.

I won't go into specifics, it's not really fair on anybody involved, but it's safe to say that, as expected, once I found out that a Facebook post of ours had gone viral, the first feeling that I had was one of fear, panic, frustration, and then finally EXCITEMENT.

Why?

Because it is a chance to turn a bad situation around.

This is why you got into this job. It's not just to build neat apps, it's not to make pretty landing pages. It's crisis management, baby, and you simply have to be the best at riding it out.

You can write a community policy, you can have as many social meetings as you like, you can have all of the snazzy whistles and bells surrounding you and making your job as easy as possible.

But in social media, all of that preparation, education and advice can go up in smoke in the most spectacular way by somebody choosing to post something to a page that is at best questionable, and at the worst offensive to people.

Not reacting to it can wreck all of the blood, sweat and tears that you have put into a brand, TV station, radio station, clothing line.

You have to react quickly, and if you have upset people, you must apologise straight away.

And let me tell you something - you may remain calm, but people DO shit themselves. Try your best not to. Wear a nappy, or something.

Some people will tell you within the company - possibly people that don't see the benefits of what you are trying to do, or people who don't see what the fuss is about.

The one thing I would say to that is: Listen to them, and then be prepared to be honest, and disagree.

You have case studies of social media mistakes coming out of the ying yang - from Kenneth Cole to United Airlines...

You are the person they hired to put a tricky situation right. You deal with the pace and emotional flux that permeate Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and Google+ over the course of a day. You are wired into a situation room that only has one entrance, and one exit - and the public are waiting at the exit.

What do you say to them if you have upset them?

You say sorry. And if you are a decent person, you mean it.

And we meant it.

Facebook Promotion Guidelines: there for a reason!

2011-10-28T17:42:00.000+01:00

One of the most annoying things about being involved in social media is watching so many other brands get it so horribly wrong.

What’s even worse is when they get it wrong through sheer laziness. Making a genuine mistake is one thing, but to not give yourself a chance by not even bothering to read the terms and conditions of a site you are posting on is at best stupid, and at the very worse a sign that you don’t really care about how you exploit the people using that platform.

Take Seabrooks Crisps. This week, they launched one of those incredibly predictable Facebook competitions on their company page, where they ask fans of their page to change their profile picture (yawn) to a picture of a bag of crisps (YAAAAWWWN).

‘Hold the front page!’ I hear you cry…

Aside from it being a dreadful, worn-out idea, it’s also in contravention of the Facebook Competition Guidelines. It’s a sweepstake that uses Facebook’s core functionality. This is clearly verboten in their guidelines, but it doesn’t stop hundreds of Facebook pages, and brands big and small, from breaking the rules to gain an advantage.

And I think it’s great for the majority that abide by the rules when the ones that don’t get stung.

When SAS air travel broke the rules with this Facebook competition, they had their page, and the 116k fans they had, removed without warning by Facebook.

Sorry to come across as a grave-dancer, but GOOD…

(As an aside, I love how they tried to spin the video to seem like they were ‘going rogue’ and sticking it to the man by breaking the rules. You weren’t, SAS. It was a lazy idea and you got busted for it.)

It annoys me when I see bad competitions because I see the other side of it. I see developers, marketers, PEOPLE slaving away at interesting, useful unique ideas and applications, only for some dimwit to create a facebook page and try and gain more fans or followers by saying ‘Hey guys! Like us to get a free iPad’.

It’s depressing – like finding out that more people were into Keeping Up With The Kardashians than were into Starry Night by Van Gogh. Or The Only Way Is Essex, which is blatantly better.

I know that people are always into something for nothing – but really, would you want a fan for the long run if the only reason they liked you or followed them was because you gave them free stuff?

It just makes you look like a desperate cat in heat, with your arse up in the air.

It’s skanky, and it needs to stop – and I hope Facebook shuts down every offending page.

Web 2.0 and Web 3.0

2011-10-22T09:00:00.000+01:00

I've spent the week trying to get my head around what Web 3.0 really is.

It's surprisingly difficult. Even though there has been so much written about it, and so much of the tech press has been talking about it for quite some time now. The hottest buzzword going around the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco wasn't the latest, greatest new social platform. It was Web 3.0.

What is the the thinking behind Web 3.0?

Essentially, it is taking the tools that we already currently have (Web Browsers, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, online profiles and blogs), and using all the information on what you have shared and liked, and tailoring your browsing experience to represent your interests, making the web a more meaningful place. Instant personalisation, a lot like what the company that I work for, GMG Radio, have attempted with the new Smooth Radio website.

This is either very exciting, or very scary, depending on how you feel about handing your information over to companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter.

In many ways, Web 3.0 is here already. Intelligent search, Facebook Open Graph, Twitter Annotations - all geared towards making the web a more personal place, tailored to your needs, rather than a place that you have to hunt around and organise the relevant information for yourself.

This in itself is great, although I have to say that half the fun of the internet is knowing that ANYTHING could be out there. The opportunity to fish around for information could be severely limited by 3.0 unless we are very careful.

It could make information easier to hide, and who, apart from certain nefarious characters, would want to do that?

Insight vs. Foresight

2011-09-18T18:21:00.000+01:00

Do you predict the future of technology? Are you a budding social media futurologist, predicting the next big thing, the next trend (location in 2010, coupon sites in 2011)?

Have you checked recently to see how right you are? Chances are, you are probably way out.

Don't take it the wrong way. You are not alone. We all try to find a path, to make it known that we can predict the future of our technology.

Now imagine if you took a pinch of the effort you are putting into trying to predict the future, and applied it to understanding the tools available to you now.

Chances are you'd not only be wrong a lot less - you'd also be a lot more useful in the here and now.

It is human nature to try and predict the future, so don't feel to bad. Just try to live in the social here and now. Where your audience is now.

Where you are concentrating your efforts now?

Twitter user growth - exciting figures, but still so much to achieve

2011-09-09T17:12:00.000+01:00

The growth of Twitter as been nothing short of phenomenal in the past year.

According to the latest update from Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, Twitter has had a bumper year of growth, with the micro-blogging platform finally reaching the 100 million active user mark, with over 55 million log-ins on mobile platforms and tablets per month.

There is a very big difference between a service having registered users and active users, and every social network measures them differently. Of the 100 million active users that log in to Twitter once a month, 50 million of them log in to check up once a day.

Whilst this is a small number compared to Facebook’s 750 million active users, and it’s still quite a way behind the 350 million daily users using Facebook every day, this number is encouraging. Let me put it this way: I wouldn’t be too concerned if I was Dorsey. Any long-established platform that can manage to increase it’s user activity by 82% in under a year is onto something special.

The decision to open up the Twitter stream to advertising is a bold one, and as with most changes, will probably be greeted with a degree of anger by many people who don’t want to see marketing messages, it is vital to the growth of Twitter to monetise the platform.

Businesses in Silicon Valley, and in the big wide world can start on ideas, but it is more vital than ever to Twitter’s growth rate and scaleability that they start making some serious geld, especially seeing as they are nobly committing to remaining as independent as possible for the foreseeable future.

What do you think?

Today: A 30 year old community editor talks too much

2011-09-06T21:12:00.000+01:00

Thirtyboo (mp3)

Twitter: earthquake news fast and first

2011-09-01T17:31:00.000+01:00

Neat little video from Twitter (via Laughing Squid) illustrating how you can receive an update about a coast-to-coast earthquake before it reaches you.

The most disturbing thing about this video however is how I am slowly morphing into every social media dork in the world.

iPhone? Check

Neutral shirt? Check

Twitter mug? WANT ONE.

Steve Jobs: thanks

2011-08-25T21:12:00.000+01:00

Just wanted to share a few thoughts with you all regarding Steve Jobs, and his departure from Apple.

Having put up for years with slow, bitty desktop PCs running at a tenth of the speed they promised, and more importantly the incessant nagging of my best buddy (and now full-time genius) Martin, I finally took the decision in December 2007 to upgrade to a Macbook.

It was the black Macbook, and it was geek-love at first sight for me...

Sadly, when our old house in London was burgled last year, both Ana’s and my laptops were the only things of any value stolen from the house. We were both upset about this, although not enough to lose perspective over the fact that some scumbag had been in our house and turned our drawers inside out.

I’m not an under-the-bonnet geek. I am into communities, building them and growing them online. The tools I use are just a means to an end.

The two things I need for my software and hardware are:

Ease of use
Functionality

If it’s not quick, or if it doesn’t let me do what I need to do in a simple, user-friendly way, I don’t like it.

Apple made building, maintaining and growing social networks a breeze. It made listening to and storing my music an enjoyable experience.

I feel like my iPod, iPhone and Macbook Pro enhance my working life, and make surfing the web, writing, researching, creating, downloading and uploading so intuitive I don’t even need to think twice about what to do.

Steve Jobs helmed the company through this period, and I’m not going to gush, but I just wanted to say thanks. You’ve made my job a lot more fun, and much easier, as a result of your hard work and attention to detail. I really appreciate it, and I hope you have a long, happy and healthy retirement.

And to people who complain that Steve Jobs only ever answered your emails with one-sentence (often one-word) responses, I will only say this once: Grow up. It’s how CEOs write emails.

Tweet Responsibly/Meme Artists

2011-08-15T20:47:00.000+01:00

In the aftermath of the riots that have shook the country to it’s core over the past week, one of the most interesting and disturbing developments is not only the media and the government looking to try and blame social media and technology for the social issues behind the riots, but also the staggering amount of misinformation and negative memes disseminated through social networks.

It’s clear that in moments of turmoil, some people choose to try and be as unhelpful as possible.

One meme that I noticed on Tuesday going around Facebook was ‘RIP Broken Britain’, a series of soundbites designed to provoke anger at the supposed ‘liberal soft-soaping’ of people in this country, meaning that ‘decent folk’ couldn’t beat their kids, or I don’t know, shoot kids hanging around outside of their houses.

I often wonder where these memes come from, who plants them, and why they are so often from the right of the political spectrum.

Another interesting site that got me thinking was a really informative post from James Cridland of MediaUK.

He came up with a simple set of guidelines that, in my opinion, all journalists, politicians and people in positions of power and responsibility should be taking notice of.

I strongly urge you to check out the site James has created for the full Tweet Responsibly guidelines, but to give a bit more context of where his idea came from, I contacted James, and he was happy to supply me with the following quote:

“I spent a long time on Monday mapping the Twitter riots - and spotted a lot of false rumour being placed on sites like Twitter that caused genuine alarm to people. I learnt a lot about how people are using Twitter: and it was notable on Tuesday that users were beginning to be more vocal about false rumour being placed there
I've worked in the media for the last 20 years, and I thought some simple, one-page guidelines (which users can tweet every so often) on how to use Twitter responsibly would be a good idea.
If you make mistakes - both the BBC and Sky did - then correcting these mistakes is important. Of course, not everyone will see these corrections, but it does still help put the record straight - and, as people search to verify rumours and gossip, they should see these corrections too.
The media has, by and large, done a good job of covering the use of social media during the riots. The Daily Mail has pandered to its readers' distrust of new technology as ever, but I've felt that the good points about social media have been highlighted just as much as the inevitably bad.
Notably, the police have been using social media to correct false rumours and calm the situation: something that, if David Cameron has his way and somehow bans Twitter during uprisings, won't happen. The media certainly understand this world more than the politicians.”

It is our responsibility to use the echo-chamber that is Twitter to genuinely disseminate information about the world around us. Twitter at it’s very core is a reaction to the world around us. we all put our citizen journalist hats on when it suits us, but can anybody see if you’re wearing it from your avatar? No? Then wise up and start telling your truth.

If you have influence, try to use it positively. It’s the only way this world is going to start communicating constructively. That doesn’t mean you can’t be negative, critical, or speak up for sections of society that are traditionally ignored and marginalised. In fact, the more you talk about it, the more attention you can bring to the issue. SHOUT IF YOU HAVE TO. Just be honest. If you have influence, use it for good.

Therefore, obvious joking and occasional glimpses of magic aside, do we have a responsibility to not fan the flames of salacious tittle-tattle for the sake of five minutes of fun? I think we do.

Riots, Twitter, BBM and the art of deflection.

2011-08-09T18:35:00.000+01:00

Hulk Hugan on UK Riots (mp3)

I moved up to Manchester last year with my lovely girlfriend after six years of calling London my home. The events of the past few days have shocked and saddened me beyond belief, and despite what people have said to the contrary, this is a situation that has been brewing for quite some time. You only have to take a look at the world around you, the disaffection many people feel with traditional politics, and the consumerist culture we have created and perpetuated, which grants you status only on account of the amount of money you earn and spend. Add that to a potent brew of unaddressed issues surrounding crime, immigration, education, joblessness and the gap between rich and poor, and you have a very angry country on your hands.

The country is clearly in pain, and this riot is as indicative of the general tension within the country as the Council Strikes in Southampton, the tuition fees protests, and the rise of far-right organisations such as the EDL.

We all have to be very careful when it comes to getting all of the facts together, and not just blindly agreeing to a moronic narrative set out to us by others.

The one thing that I’d like to clear up is that technology and social media, whilst being an echo chamber for society, is not an enabler of violence and disorder. Just as Facebook’s role in the Arab Spring has been over-stated, the true factor in public disorder is not the screaming, shouting and hand-wringing that goes on in social spaces. It's not in the BBM’s people send, the phone calls we make or the text messages we send.

Nearly all public uprisings start in private.

Therefore, ‘social’ is not to blame. In fact, social media sites go out of their way not to be private (rightly or wrongly).

To blame technology and social spaces for enabling people to share their thoughts and beliefs on an issue is massively foolish, and only serves to deflect attention from the real debate: why are our sons, daughters, cousins, brothers, sisters and grandchildren so angry? And, maybe instead of looking to shut people out of social spaces such as Twitter and Facebook, maybe the powers that be should look to engage a little bit more with them on the platforms they use.

Twitter is as much about listening to people as it is about tweeting. I'm sure there's a lesson in that last sentence for somebody.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi, (attributed)Indian political and spiritual leader (1869 - 1948)

Why use Google+?

2011-07-26T17:48:00.000+01:00

This is a really funny, succinct take on Google+.

Interestingly, I'd like to know the amount of posts on Google+ that are about the service itself.

The greatest Google+ guide in the world... Not really.

2011-07-18T19:32:00.000+01:00

So I was going to start writing one of the biggest, baddest Google+ guides that you were ever likely to see this week. But seeing as the rest of the world seems to be writing them, I don’t think I’ll bother. Plus, I don’t really think it’s that useful yet.

Why?

Well, for starters (and this is not a criticism of the platform in any way), most of my closest friends and family haven’t fully adopted it yet. They’ve either been invited and are still on Facebook (where their friends are), or just aren’t interested yet. There aren’t enough strong ties on + yet for me to really say if this is a game-changing platform that will revolutionize the way we interact with one another online. That’s a mouthful.

What it is for me is useful. I’ll elaborate.

The geek shall inherit the earth - we all know that, some more than others. Some also give more of a toss than others. I get that. Not everything you do needs to be done with a game-layer, a check-in, tweet or a badge in mind. And frankly, whilst sometimes bringing work home with you may sound like a great idea, ask your friends, family and loved ones. They probably haven’t heard of half of the shit you’re talking about, and frankly, they’ve got bigger fish to fry.

But you still want to blog - well, you can! It’s just that when it comes to sharing the information socially, you can actually send the post to the people you know that will actually give a shit about what you have to say about the future of Zynga, mobile payments, Facebook, the cloud or Google+.

Sure, initially fewer eyes may see the posts - but a guarantee that those people will actually be interested in what you have to type, rather than scanning over it dutifully (love you xxx).

So you just create a circle in Google+ to share these stories with. And viola. It’s done. Less mess, less boredom and disappointment for all involved!

In a way, it’s taken social media to another logical, step. Categorisation isn’t Twitter’s strong point - in fact it thrives on the freeform exchange of ideas, like a brainstorming session at a pub/ Facebook attempted to use groups to help you control what information you share with whom, but after giving it a go, I’ve found it to be clunky, time-consuming, and a bit too much like work.

Google+ is built around the fact that you are a person, and that you have more than one side. Up here for thinking, down there for dancing, so to speak.

Facebook for a business is kind of like working at the mall. All of your friends are hanging out at the Nike store drinking milkshakes, whilst you’re flipping burgers on your own Facebook brand page, trying to develop that killer app.

Twitter is a great channel and echo-chamber for ideas, ideology and movements. You get as much benefit listening as you do taking part.

Google+ is starting to be meaningful and rewarding for me, mainly because I don’t feel under quite so much pressure to be ‘on’ all the time with it. I share with who I like, when I like. Not everybody, all of the time. Would you use a loudspeaker to announce a few drinks after work? No, because sometimes you don’t want to invite everybody.

But it’s not quite there yet. Give it a few more weeks before you judge it, and don’t take too much notice of what the geeks and nerds of Silicon Valley are saying about it. Wait until everybody else is on there. All of your friends, family, business contacts and pets are on there. Then see how you start using it.

Guides are all well and good, but I like to make stuff up as I go along. It’s more fun that way.

Twitter, t*ts and Giggsles

2011-05-24T20:53:00.000+01:00

Twitter has been foaming at the mouth over the injunctions granted to certain people over the past few weeks. Millions of Tweets mentioning the person accused and his alleged misdemeanor with a vapid, fame hungry nobody.

Can I just ask a question - have you all gone completely fucking mental?

I know that Twitter is a sounding board, and a reaction to the world around us, but seriously, if this level of reaction is generate to a footballer allegedly humping around, it really makes me lose my faith in the Twittersphere.

Let’s get this straight: the only interest that motivates this particular story is money and sex. Imogen Thomas and the footballer allegedly ‘did it’, Thomas is relying on it to make a bit of money, The Sun will make a lot by publishing it, and the footballer is spending a lot of money trying to stop it.

And a lot of us are siding with the paper has a great reputation for ethical reporting and ‘The Truth’.

Some lies, yesterday

You can start being high-minded, and tell me about the #trafigura, and how it marked a victory for the forces of good against evil. Great - well done. so after that victory, do we all really need to lower ourselves to the level where we are essentially grunting peasants trying to look through the curtains of an idiot?

Maybe we want a bit of retribution because, well, you know, he’s rich and successful, and he’s done something millions of people in this country (seen daily on Jeremy Kyle) have done, but probably in slightly nicer surroundings than a pizza-strewn couch. So you’re right. Screw privacy. He doesn’t deserve it. He should let us all into his house so we can watch him apologise whilst torching his face off with deodorant and a Zippy lighter. In front of his kids.

I think this footballer is a berk. I think Imogen Thomas is a berk. I’ll be polite and say I don’t read The Sun (understatement).

Credibility and true victories come when you keep your powder dry. If only Twitter could have been more vociferous in its celebration of the Stephen Lawrence retrial.

By not waiting for a bigger issue, Twitter has gone from a bubbling town hall debate, to a mass of giggling morons who just saw a flash of a garter at a strip club.

We’ve lost the moral high-ground.

Well done everybody.

Google Social Search: Thanks but no thanks...

2011-05-19T14:07:00.000+01:00

Just been watching this social search video. Funnily enough, I didn’t have any misconceptions about Google Social Search until I started viewing it...

Let me get one thing straight: social is my job. And I love getting recommendations from my friends. And I hope they enjoy getting recommendations from me.

But I don’t like the idea of my search results being tailored to what the people I follow on Twitter recommend makes me feel a little bit, well, over-tailored to.

Thanks Google, but sometimes I’d rather make my own decisions based on the best option available, rather than the opinions Twitter, and other social networks have to offer.

What do you think?

Social Media Suckers: Bleeding You Dry

2011-05-10T21:50:00.000+01:00

Some rights reserved by outcast104

I'm currently reading a really good book. It's called Suckers, and it's by Ann Bilson. Set in the eighties, it follows a cynical, sociopathic stalker that finds out that the whole of London, and the object of her affections are being stalked by creatures of the night. Vampires. Set against the boom-and-bust of the fashion and publishing industries in the eighties, it's a satire on the societal mores of the time. The yuppies are willingly turned. They start to develop a taste for various forms of blood, baby blood being the most popular. They start to refer to normal people as 'nips' - merely a vessel keeping the plasma warm until the are needed for feasting.

The centre of this evil lies in the docklands of London, in a big black tower called MultiGlom.

It may sound a bit heavy handed to non-horror fans, or people who may prefer more nuanced, Salon-esque essays on greed and the noveau riche, along with their attitudes towards the hoi-polloi.

But visions of this book returned to me when I read an article today regarding a recent 'investors' tech party held on a cruise ship in the Caribbean. The people at this event, which included a keynote speech from Richard Branson, were all silicon valley start-up kids. Tech geeks, angel investors, entrepreneurs (AKA the unemployed) rubbed shoulders and other body parts, toasting their own success.

Let me make a prediction here: 90 percent of these businesses will fail in the next year. Nobody, not even Martin Lewis, needs that many coupon sites in his life.

Perhaps the most shocking thing to me about this article is the amount of self-indulgent backslapping that seems to take place at these events.

"Take Travis Kalanick, a Summit-goer who founded Uber, an on-demand car service that uses mobile apps. In February, less than eight months after its launch, Uber rounded up nearly $12 million from investors at a $60 million valuation. Kalanick said Uber has more than 10 investors with a long line of suitors eager to snap up shares.

Aaron Batalion, co-founder of the daily deals site LivingSocial, also had something to toast at this year’s Summit. Four days before the conference, and less than four months after landing a $175 million investment, Living Social raised $400 million at a whopping $3 billion dollar valuation."

So that's a car rental company and a coupon/pyramid promotion company. So far, so not a big wow.

But these investors aren't stupid. JP Morgan are not stupid. We may baulk, justifiably, at the valuations of some of these platforms, but the truth, is, we are the 'nips' in this little vampiric tech circle-jerk.

All of these investors, all of these sites, all of these silicon valley hot-shots, are getting rich off of your personal data. Data that we are providing willingly to these sites, often just to try them out before deciding 'Oh, that's a bit shit', and never visiting again.

That's the worst thing.

And these are the people who will probably laugh their asses off at the Skype/Microsoft deal, just because hey, it's Microsoft, that company from the nineties that have faded into obscurity (i.e fallen out of fashion) because they don't make cool phones or have Lykke Li fronting an ad campaign for them.

But maybe they should be taking note.

Because if Skype, a genuinely transformative, long-haul company that has successfully spawned and maintained thousands of long-term relationships, and MSN Messenger, a still-relevant so-called relic from a bygone era, are combined, then you have a seriously useful platform. An enabler of relationships. Genuine interactions from you and me. And Microsoft have paid cash for a company with that potential, with is a fraction of the $67 billion that Facebook is currently valued at.

You could say that they've jumped in with a rash purchase that potentially backfire much worse than NewsCorp and Myspace, or AOL and Bebo.

Or you could say that they've put down cash to buy a solid business that could provide real benefit for them at the fraction of the market value of the biggest social hub on the planet.

That's what I think.

Who are the suckers now, kids? Not Microsoft in my books.

An open letter to Twitter

2011-04-28T17:25:00.000+01:00

Dear Twitter,

I didn’t really want to write this letter. It’s especially hard as every time I start thinking of all that we have been through, from the death of MJ, to that failed #fuckthebanks hashtag that I tried to start up on Twitter in a fit of revolutionary pique (and anger at Santander). It wasn’t very good, was it?

Anyway...

People of Twitter - I’m actually pretty angry at you at the moment. Angry and disappointed, like Geoff when he berated PJ & Duncan in Byker Grove.

You’ve let me down, you’ve let yourselves down, but more importantly, you’ve let Social Media down.

Why is that? Oh, you don’t know? Well let me fill you in...

Let’s start with wishing suicide on a 13 year old for having the temerity to release an (admittedly shit) song.

Followed by a course of bullying from angry Manchester United fans. Upset at only winning one nil at the weekend, their fans turned to Twitter to pour scorn on their young midfielder Darron Gibson, just for having the temerity of not being as good as He Who Can’t Be Named Due To Legal Reasons, or Wayne Rooney. Upset at the level of uneducated abuse, Gibson chose to leave Twitter hours later.

And who could blame him?

When I’m asked to explain Twitter in meetings and presentations, I often describe it as a reaction to the world around us. But, with some of the reactions and tweets that are posted on the network, a CEO at first glance could almost (almost) be justified in thinking that Twitter was merely an open sewer which allows the most obnoxious, thick people in the world to pour bile down the throat of whoever they happen to hate at that moment in time.

I thought that was what Youtube was for?

I love using you Twitter, but jesus, some of the shit I see on there from supposedly ‘educated’, tech-savvy people makes me want to pop my eyes with a ballpoint pen.

Is there a better way for us to battle the rise of the idiots now a large majority of them have Twitter accounts, and a small minority of them are, somehow, influential?

Do we drown them out, ignore them, or do we move on? Or, am I just being a snob?

I’m reaching out to you Twitter - throw me a bone. Or some abuse.

Thanks,

Ben

FOMO - Fear of Missing Out

2011-04-13T13:31:00.000+01:00

FOMO - Fear of Missing Out.

It’s another neat acronym that you can use to sum up how technology is shaping our lives, our hopes, our fears and our anxieties.

In this great piece in the New York Times, Jenna Wortham speaks of the feelings of uneasyness that being constantly wired bring her, especially on a quiet night in with a DVD. And, of course, her Smartphone...

“As the alerts came in, my mind began to race. Three friends, I learned, had arrived at a music venue near my apartment. But why? What was happening there? Then I saw pictures of other friends enjoying fancy milkshakes at a trendy restaurant. Suddenly, my simple domestic pleasures paled in comparison with the things I could be doing.”

So, in addition to making us dumber, does the internet also make us more socially anxious? And does social media make us feel better, or worse about ourselves? Are you feeling like a shrinking violet, or even a Judgy Judgerson?

I don’t think so.

To me, social media and the internet is all about sharing where you are, what you are up to, where you are and who you are doing it with. It’s about sharing content with the people you like, and the people that you love.

All of the pathological feelings of attachment to technology, to ‘being busy’, and social anxiety would still be there if we lived in an age before technology. Social media may enable the condition, but it is not the cause. We are inherently social. To share and to tell stories is in our nature. To want to belong is to be human.

The pace at which we live may be the problem instead. We are always ‘on’. Both my girlfriend and I check our phones and read blogs/Twitter/Facebook before we go to bed (it’s only through sheer willpower that I don’t use Foursquare to check into my bed. The need for information in people is so great, that now we have a 24 hour multi-national internet culture, we all rush to devour the information that is constantly at our fingertips.

Learning when and where to switch off should be the solution. And realising it’s better to know a lot about a little than a little about a lot.

Ultimately, if you want to get things done, I’d probably recommend switching off the computer. Or closing your internet browser. And your smartphone. Get out a notepad. Call your mate. Get some fresh air.

We are in control of when to switch off.

He says. At 11pm. From behind his laptop.

Why does a company need a social media policy? It's the law!

2011-04-07T22:10:00.000+01:00

I’ve been working on a social media policy for my place of work. Although I won’t reveal which company it is, rest assured it’s raised a few questions in my mind, and crystalized a few points in my head.

There is a lot of talk at the moment of social media and it’s relation to law in this country. We all know how social media can effectively circumvent traditional company, press and legal guidelines. If you are influential enough, you can publish a story on a social platform and get it shared. Twitter gives you access to a public platform that can be a curse and a blessing, depending on how you approach it.

For every councilor getting fined, there are thousands of representatives on public social sites using them to their best and fullest extent.

But that doesn’t mean that you don’t need a policy and legal documentation in place.

In fact, I’d go as far to say that if your company doesn’t have a social media policy, you need to GET ONE NOW, STUPID!

This is not a case me flip-flopping, and this should never be used as an excuse to squash internal and external debate on issues relating to your company. As long as you are responding to any issues in a timely matter, content on a social site is not a major area for litigation.

It just makes sense if you don’t want to get sued.

BBC Radio Manchester recently had an issue where their Twitter account was accidently used to send a personal Tweet about the person in question being stuck on a plane next to some drunk scousers. That caused a lot of red faces at the Beeb, who promptly sent an apology and have decided to privately reprimand the person in question. Completely fair. Any disciplinary action should be kept internal, and should not be blasted out into the public arena before due diligence, accountability and action is taken. If at all.

Maybe some journalists should be doing the same, but that’s just me getting on my soapbox, and if public interest applies (something that was published on a public platform from a trusted source should be taken as public by default), then we have a right to know.

AS a company, you need to know in black and white what you can and cannot say on social platforms legally, and everybody at the company needs to be aware of this.

Sadly, Zappos and their mission statement of ‘being real, and using your best judgement’ don’t stand up now that the digital legal eagles are circling Twitter.

We know that our perceptions of brands are influenced by what we see and read. If you want your company and it’s representatives to keep publishing shit-hot content, GET YOURSELF COVERED, and get a policy in place, and educate your staff. Take time to train them to be more effective. Socially savvy people are hiding in your company, and training will unearth some real stars that can help shape the open future of your ourbound communications. The cost to you and your company may far outweigh any potential compensation pay outs if you have offended or defamed an innocent party on a social media site.

What do you think? Have I got a point, or am I just talking a load of chuff?

Facebook Questions - Good or Bad?

2011-04-03T23:18:00.000+01:00

I thought it was worth sending an update to you all to let you know (if you didn't know already) about a new feature that’s been introduced to Facebook's brand pages - Questions.

It's great for gathering opinions from your friends, family, and most importantly - YOUR audience. Everything from where they eat, to what their favorite movie is of all time. The only limit is the questions that you can think of.

This is a great feature, and a whole crapload lot of fun. The more questions we can ask of our audience, the more we find out about them, and the more content we can get out of them.

When somebody answers one of your questions, it then shows up in their feed. If somebody else sees that feed, and the question is good enough, they will answer it.

Check out an example of Facebook Questions in action from the official What Noise? Facebook page…

As you can see, the snarky nature of the internet (or more to the point people being honest) means that the majority of people voting said that they didn't like it. But the interesting thing for me was that people from outside of the group actually saw the question in their feed, and got involved.

This alone proved to me what a good tool this could be for engagement, and for growing your reach beyond your immediate audience.

NOTE: But only if you use it properly. Obviously, if you ask shit questions (which I can be guilty of sometimes), it's annoying and totally useless.

I can't wait to see some brands and how they use this function. Or how they don't.

False Alarm: Google Circles Not Coming Now

2011-03-16T20:32:00.000Z

Some rights reserved by ssoosay

So there we have it. The Google Lord giveth with one hand, and takes away with another...

So there's no Google Circles for the time being. Just a bit of labs research. Although people's reactions to it suggest that there is a genuine hunger for a new way of sharing with your personal information.

The misinformation was clearly leaked though, and they certainly were in no rush to dispel the rumours, which at least means that they can get some good buzz monitoring out of the situation.

So still a well done for Google. Can't wait to see what they have up their sleeves socially - maybe combining the good elements of Wave and Buzz?

Google Circles - excited?

2011-03-13T18:09:00.000Z

Is Google getting ready to launch a social platform?

Apparently so.

I think this may be a good thing.

Why? Well...

Facebook has personalized and worked it’s way into your social circle to such as an extent that it’s almost hard not to see any non-adopters as dunder-headed technophobes (otherwise know as people that really value their privacy at some level). That’s the way Facebook wants you to feel. It wants you to feel left out if you are not already on board.

Google Circles could potentially be a plan B for people put off by the smothering blanket of ‘Like’.

Your social circle is not just a circle. Your mum is not mates with your old physics teacher (I hope), who in turn is not mates with your mate Barry.

By contextualizing relationships and offering a separate pool for each of your friendship groups (which is what Facebook tried to offer when they re-launched groups last year), you can get more value out of them than if you had all of your friends together in a large pool. It would also save the embarrassment of your mum or Aunt knowing that you smoked.

Our friendships aren’t shaped in a manner which can be catered for by a single circle. Maybe not even the Circles that Google are suggesting. But then, isn’t that what real life is all about?

Have a look at the presentation from Paul Adams (Google's ex-social technology researcher, and possible Godfather of Circles) below and let me know what you think.

The Real Life Social Network v2

View more documents from Paul Adams.

Personally, as it’s Sunday, and I’ve just had a massive roast, I’m voting that we wait for technology to catch up with those experiences.

My Social Media Inspiration: astronauts and boxers

2011-03-03T13:36:00.000Z

Some rights reserved by The U.S. Army

The social media space race is truly upon us. I used to call it the gold rush, but since I think that the technology at our disposal is a bit more advanced, I think that space race is more apt.

The rush to get social media off the ground at companies is really apparent. But many feel that rather than concentrating on one or two platforms at a time to spread their message, and assign departments to look after the social assets, they should be 'just out there doing it'. So they sign up for every account imaginable.

When an astronaut is going into space, he is breaking new ground. He could be making history. He could be doing something nobody has ever done before, or adding a new perspective to something we've grown accustomed to (the moon).

Did he just get his hands dirty and do it? No.

He was just one part of a carefully considered plan. From inception, to carrying out the launch, to orbiting the earth, to going boldly where no man has gone before, he breaks new ground meticulously, to eliminate all reasonable risks, and carry out a successful mission.

He was part of an amazing team that trained with him, prepared him, gave him mission targets, and smaller targets along the way. They monitored and measured his progress and gave him feedback. They helped him when he got stuck. They didn't leave him hanging.

Mission control were always there for the astronaut.

Contrary to popular belief, Mike Tyson wasn't just an animal in the ring.

Muhammad Ali was the greatest, but Tyson was the best. At his peak, he was unstoppable, but in his corner he had his mentor, his biggest fan and his trainer, Cus D'amato. Tyson was a quiet boy outside of the ring, who really studied and understood his art. D'Amato honed his talent into something great by forcing Tyson to watch endless training videos, mapping out his opponents and mercilessly targeting their weak spots.

Tyson, although he was a strong man, would not have been the brilliant fighter he was just by turning up and slugging it out. Planning and careful preparation was needed to make him the boxing monster that he was (forgive the irony of that last statement). Stupidity, lack of planning and forethought was what ruined him outside of the ring.

Which one would you rather be?

The heavyweight that doesn't prepare?

The astronaut that just hops into a shuttle and blasts off into space?

Or would you rather be part of a winning team. Social Media mission control. The one that they all turn to when times are tough. The one that can think himself out of a corner.

Which one do you want to be? And which one is your company?

Bullshit Buzzword Bingo, by a seasoned Webstratepaneur

2011-02-15T17:00:00.000Z

Some rights reserved by sekimura

Basically, everything that I do when it comes to making social a good option for companies is to not take the nuclear option with the buzzwords, and overwhelm everybody. It's a con. Being social is not hard.

Lets face it, although buzz-words are the work of the devil, we all need to shorten and make a good analogy from time to time. Sometimes the analogy gets shortened, and that’s where the buzzing starts to occur.

And then what happens? Then I have to get together a social media dictionary, only to discover that my own head is shoved up my ass, and I’m as deep in the bullshit bingo as this dude. So thanks for all of the buzzwords, everybody. And by thank you, I mean, sod you arsebiscuit.

Thanks for making my day A Bajillion Hits. A more-than necessary reality check for me.

Follow @kennethcole on Twitter

2011-02-03T22:18:00.000Z

For insightful and (in)sensitive posts such as...

Thanks to Mark Hillary (follow him @markhillary) for the screen cap

What an Outrageous tweet about Egypt.

Social media fail much?

What a douchebag.

Brands: take note.

Is The Daily any good?

2011-02-03T09:45:00.000Z

Photo Credit: Mulad, Flickr

So, News Corp has spent $30M on The Daily iPad newspaper. But is it any good?

From the looks of it, it looks more like a step backwards jammed into a step forwards.

Does anybody really want to pay for something online (or in Apple's walled garden), that doesn't have 100% relevancy to their own lives?

The news industry needs to evolve, and start thinking of creative, stream-lined solutions. If you look at some of the most popular sites on the internet, you'll see that they are mostly single issue. If I want news, I'll go to a specialised news site. If I want tech news, I'll head over to Twitter, Reddit, Techmeme or any other site to read about news that is relevant to me.

Is there any room for an old-fashioned paper like The Daily in today's market?

I don't think so. What do you think?

Twitter tools: Sky Sports presenters get some sly social medicine

2011-01-26T19:32:00.000Z

Photo courtesy of Uppityrib (Flickr)

This week has been a crazy one if you are a sports fan. Sky Sports presenters Andy Gray and Richard Keys have been suspended (Gray has since been sacked) after making sexist comments about a female lineswoman Sian Massey at a Premier League game last weekend.

Sky were right to act in the way they were, but why has these videos surfaced at this time?

Well, it’s simple.

Rupert Murdoch, whose son James is chairman of BskyB knows the power of shrill liberal outrage (this is just a turn of phrase, I’m as liberal as they come). A great deal of liberal outrage can be found on Twitter. Support for Murdoch is low on social platforms, unless of course you are talking about Myspace, which to be honest, nobody is.

Controversial videos go viral very quickly. This video has been top of the Youtube trends all week, and has been going nuts on Twitter.

Misdirection away from the Andy Coulson/News of The World phone hacking saga was certainly needed by Rupert, as this was a new bête noir amongst the political, liberally-minded Twitterers tiring of Wikileaks conspiracy theories.

Andy Gray was taking legal action against a Murdoch-owned paper. His sexism was disgusting, and wrong, and yes, he should be punished for it. But let’s be honest here – is it any coincidence that this story has been leaked at this time, in the manner that it has?

Leaks make for great viral, social content. Somebody close to Rupert knows this. He knows it too. And he’s used it to deflect attention from a much, much bigger story.

He’s thrown a couple of sexists to the baying social media mob. And maybe before we tweet, or post to Facebook, we should take note of the where the information has come from. Sometimes, the seeding could be from a seedier place than you think, with an even seedier motive.

And speaking of seedy, we'll leave the final word to Andy, shall we?

(Update: Keys has now resigned too)

What use is a social media super account?

2011-01-20T21:44:00.000Z

Photo source: Intersection Consulting (via Flickr)

So you think that super brands have it easy on social media? Well, think again.

Over the course of my sort online career, I’ve been lucky enough to monitor and look after a number of large and small brands on social media sites.

One thing that’s always surprised me is how blown away I get by people getting in contact with the brand I’m representing, uploading a picture, telling a story (but not in a wanky way of course). I love it, and I hope that never changes. If it does, I think it’ll be time for a new career.

To me, one of the biggest myths about social media is that bigger brands can just set up a page on Facebook, and immediately start to engage and start conversations that are good for their business, and good for their fans. That is just not true.

You have to work for it, because as much as you know that you should be on social media, your audience will still be slightly cynical of any branded content that you put out there. A page/account is just one of them. You have to become a friend. And how do you do that if you are just one person behind a massive brand?

When I was working at Ministry of Sound, one of the first big lightbulb moments for me was when I started asking questions on the Facebook page. People started to respond, and it was amazing. It still is.

You can have loads of great content on your site, which will feed through to your social platforms without any issues. But frankly, it will look pretty boring unless you actually ask them questions, show them cool stuff, and give them pictures.

Let’s say you have 300k people on your page, and you are 'just' a national company

Can you really have a coherent community of 300k people?

· They all have different interests
· They are all from different parts of the country
· They may not respond to the branded content you are pushing on them

So a one-size-fits-all mentality doesn’t mesh well with for a large business. Especially if you have regional bases.

Why not diversify? Why not get smart with offering people info that is hyper-relevant to them? Why not have your work force dedicated to sharing great, useful information rather than just selling your brand?

Your brand will sell itself if you post useful, insightful content and apps.

Think Schweppes, and their useful harnessing of Facebook’s new profile layout hype…

You'd be surprised what you get back...

What do you think?

Celebrity Twitterers: Tweeting us like idiots

2011-01-13T14:05:00.000Z

Photo: Flickr

I saw an article this week that made me quite angry. It effects me, it effects you, and frankly, I’m a little disgusted by it.

Apparently, Twitter power users and celebrities such as Snoop Dogg and Kim Kardashian charge brands and organisations to mention their products.

Although I am well aware that in these tight times people need to make a buck, frankly, I’m a bit sickened by this.

Just think about it – imagine if you had a mate that you really liked. Somebody that you looked up to, wanted to hang out with, enjoyed spending time with and felt like you had a bond with. Somebody that you really looked up to and trusted.

One day, when you’re in the bar with them, they take out a shiny new phone and start playing with it and showing it off. They tell you how much they like the phone, and love the features. The tariff is pretty competitive, and they know a way you can get it for a bit cheapr than people normally do. How helpful would that be? Very.

But what if your friend had a vested interest in promoting this phone? What if he’d been paid to promote it outside the pub by a man with a brown envelope from the phone company? How would that feel?

I can tell you how I'd feel – I'd feel cheated.

And that’s exactly what these celebrities are doing to their followers. The whole point of Twitter is to foster a more personal, instant, conversational relationship with your followers by telling them what you are up to, asking them what they are up to, and recommending great content.

By charging for tweets, these celebrities are selling out the whole social notion of what Twitter is about. You should share information about products, sites, cool stuff and blogs because you are a naturally social person. Not because somebody has just popped a few quid into your bank account.

It violates the bond of trust that is built up between users on social media. You are broadcasting to your network, and you are not being honest about your affiliations. It’s little different from payola in the music industry. And it needs to stop.

If I’m being advertised to, that’s FINE. I just want to know that I am. Don’t con me or tweet me like I’m some kind of idiot, and don’t create a secondary market out of your own reputation to circumvent traditional advertising channels.

It’s deceitful, and if you get caught, your fans will think you are an idiot. Once that respect has gone, it’s very hard to get it back.

What makes you popular on Twitter? Being useful. Being authentic. Being a pretty cool person.

Paying people for Twitter endorsements is sad. And I hope if you get caught, that the OFT nail you to the wall. #justsayin

No More Gurus - thanks!

2011-01-10T21:23:00.000Z

It’s very nice when you inadvertently stumble upon a really spot-on community of people that share the some concerns about the industry that you work in.

So when I read this piece in New Media Age by columnist and ex-ASOS Community Manager Ilana Fox (now a partner at Spoke Digital), I felt that I had to get in touch. It really resonated with me, and I offered to write a blog for her website, No More Gurus.

Social Media Gurus are a blot on the tech/new media landscape, but having people like Ilana around setting up sites like No More Gurus really reaffirms my faith in the new media community, and their indefatigability in the face of so much, well, utter rubbish that some so-called ‘gurus’ spout.

Have a read of my blog piece below, and make sure you subscribe to the blog – they’ve got lots of great content.

Ben Stroud: Beware the blind trend-follower

Thanks Ilana, and thanks to everybody that knows me – it’s a real pleasure writing this blog, and the opportunities I get through it wouldn’t be possible unless I had such a loyal bunch of friends.

How a video goes viral - by telling a great story

2011-01-08T17:51:00.000Z

For quite some time, people have been asking what makes great, contagious viral content. A lot of companies assume that by chucking a ton of money and production value at a video, that the effort that they put into ‘seeding’ the content will pay dividends.

Well, let me tell you something – that’s just not true.

To show you how a video goes viral, I submit for your perusal the most recent example of a great viral video.

Why is this so significant? Well, the number one reason is that it is a great story.

Great stories are always the most enduring. From around the campfire, all the way to social media, bookmarking and mass media today, it is the single most important thing to consider when wanting to create compelling content, social or otherwise.

The journalist finds the homeless guy (Ted Williams). Williams will do a radio voice for loose change. He has an AMAZING VOICE. He’s had a hard time in the past with drugs and alcohol. He is discovered. 4.5 million Youtube views later, and the guy becomes a phenomenon!

This is a Hollywood story. It cheers us up. It has a happy ending, and it turns our assumptions on its head. We want to share it, through every avenue open to use (email, social, radio, television, the full works).

A great piece of social content is not about how much money you spend on it. It’s about the quality of your storytelling. Learning to write a good story is free, and the benefits are endless.

So don’t spend money. Spend a bit of time.

And if you want to read a bit more about Ted Williams, have a gander at this!

Why Social Media predictions are pointless

2010-12-24T18:06:00.000Z

I’m sure that you all realise that it’s that time of year where all of the great and good in the world of technology, sports, music and everything else in the world, start making predictions about what the next year will hold in store for their relative fields?

Me? Frankly, I can’t be bothered. I’ve given up trying to make predictions, as I’d rather focus on the present and just work with what I have, not a hypothetical social toolkit that chances are may not exist in 12 months time.

And besides, at this time of year, I think we should be taking stock and counting our blessings above all else. I live in a developed country. I spend my time worrying about online communities, rather than worrying about where my next meal is coming from. I have clothes on my back, and it’s all because I work in a job that, if we’re talking about predictions here, back when I started my education, DIDN’T EVEN EXIST.

Back in 1987, online communities were barely even seeds. The social media evolution of the past six or seven years hadn’t even happened yet. Nobody I knew, or my parents knew, had a mobile phone. Things are a bit different now, aren’t they? Well, a bit. Some people were predicting that we’d be living on the moon by now.

There are two types of people in this world when it comes to technology. Those who predict, and those who just do it; who disrupt the apparent order that enables us to make secure predictions. who aim to change the way we do things not by hypothesising, but by showing us the change and taking us with them.

Don’t play it safe by making a link-baiting predictions list - use your time more constructively. Make an impact socially, implement a new project, just get out there.

Ghandi said it best: Be the change that you want to see in the world.

So, today when I sat down in front of my laptop to try and bash out a 'this is what I think will happen in 2011' blog post, I accidentally received a really cool gift - the gift of perspective.

Merry Christmas!

Why the UK will always lag behind in social media

2010-12-18T15:55:00.000Z

As you may know, I’m a bit into the idea of online and social communities. It’s kinda my job, you see. And I love it.

The thrill of creating a campfire, a room or a garden online and filling it with like-minded people, and sharing relevant information with them gives me a real buzz. And I don’t think that will ever wear off. social media levels the playing field with regards to platform, and with a few tweaks and a lot of hard work, you can grow a quality fan base that will provide you with as much of a lifetime value as some of the big brands.

But at the moment, living in the UK, I still don’t believe that we really ‘get’ social media.

Why is this? Well, there are a number of reasons, although firstly, I want to dismiss the straw man argument that it’s down to scale. In social media, as in life, size is not as important as quality.

One of the key reasons is that if you think about it, does the UK economy, heavily based on service and manufacturing, really value technological innovation, or even really understand it, or the people that do?

The worst thing about this is that I feel that as a nation, the UK is heading backwards. We never had much money when I was growing up (cue Hovis music), but I remember the first computer I ever owned was a good old, Alan Sugar-approved Amstrad CPC 464. It had British-bas developers. British-based games. It seemed homegrown. There was a refreshing lack of uniformity about the technology, and although it was hardly state-of-the-art, it was ours, and it was brilliant.

Ok, so were hardly pioneers, but we had a decent start-up offering us good home computers at a good price, which allowed programmers to publish public domain games that helped to not only influence a generation of geeks, but also a generation of popular culture too (Charlie Brooker has been weaned on this stuff, don’t forget).

Fast forward nearly thirty years however, and what do we have now? We live in the age of the internet. Not only our we actively engaging online, our kids are, and our grandparents are some of the speediest adopters around. And yet, when it comes to technological innovation, we are lagging so far behind the states it’s scary.

I love AudioBoo, and Mark Rock has done a great job with this start-up, gaining some pretty key advocates along the way (Stephen Fry, The BBC, *ahem* me...), but is it really going to be all down to him and a few key associates to drag Britain kicking and screaming into the digital age? It shouldn’t be. BTW, keep up the good work, Mark.

I don’t think adoption is the problem. I think that it’s funding more than anything else.

Why do you think that Pete Cashmore left Scotland when Mashable started getting succesful? Why is every single great social website or idea seemingly based in either California or Colorado? It’s not because of the weather (looking at you, Boulder). It’s the fact that there are investors over there who seem to understand that the true financial power of the internet is based upon disruption. And that’s where you will make your money.

Social Media has disrupted business whether we like it or not. It is not a fundamental change in the way we communicate. Telepathy is a fundamental change in the way we communicate. What it has done is forced companies to listen to their audience, and respond to positive or negative feedback, sometimes publicly.

Here in the UK, we do not reward disruption and innovation. We try to stamp on it. We have experts appear on TV talking about ‘Internet Service Protocol’ and ‘Broadcom licenses’. We pass a digital rights bill that pretty much prevents the hackers (Zuckerberg’s) of tomorrow fulfill their potential. Basically, if it’s not a shop or a fucking money-printing machine, you’ll get laughed out of any Dragon’s Den in the country. And that was before the recession. Even Channel four don’t believe in it

Even in Facebook marketing, most of our digital companies are being knocked into a cocked hat by Fox News! Regardless of what you think of their politics (I’m no fan), they know their audience, and they’re funding social initiatives, sharing stories with, and investing in their social spaces. You only have to look at that, and then look at how boring and staid our pages look to realise our attitudes towards social differ from across the pond.

FOX is what we should be aspiring to socially. PEPSI is what we should be aspiring to socially.

The US tech industry wants to disrupt. We want to contain. And we don’t even know enought to do that properly in places.

It would be great if we could start breeding tecnological, social innovators in this country. After all, we are the masters of the pub converstation, the terrace chant, and the mass phone vote. I would just like to see the innovators of tomorrow being given a chance, and being given some money by our short-sighted government(s).

Whether we like it or not, digital and social are the next battleground that we have to face as an economy. And at the moment, the best we can offer has been largely (wrongly) ignored.

So my wish for Christmas and New Year is for more money to be pumped into affordable tech education and new start-ups. And not just from the government.

Thank you for joining my campfire!

2010-12-05T19:19:00.000Z

CHEERS EVERYBODY! The beer is alcohol-free, by the way. Photo by Laura Somers.

One of the happiest days of my working life was this Friday, when I found out that one of my favourite sites, Social Media Today, had chosen to syndicate one of my articles.

I wrote my post, ‘The Campfire Effect in Social Media’ on the number 111 bus back from Manchester Piccadilly Gardens on my trusty, battered-up Blackberry, and emailed it to myself to finish when I got home. The funny thing was, I didn’t edit it that much, which is unusual, given that I am usually pretty anal about these things, being a former pro copywriter.

The social campfire seems to be an analogy that has gone down really well, and it started me thinking why this was.

Ultimately, as I’ve said quite a few times before, social media is a campfire that we all gather around to share stories. If you have a certain expertise, something you believe is useful that you can bring to the conversation, you should definitely be on there.

Many companies simply rush onto there, blindly chasing profits, when they shouldn’t be chasing anything at all. The recession may have made you desperate, but that’s not how you want to come across to your potential fans and followers. Give them calm, reasoned and useful content.

Around a campfire, this would be a great anecdote, joke, or observation. Your perspective and experience are invaluable, and are taken at face value if you communicate effectively initially. In other words, first impressions count.

The campfire feels warm, and feels welcoming. It's what we should all be aiming for

Thank you all for following my blog, and for following me on Social Media Today.

As a token of my appreciation, I have three Rockmelt invites to give away.

Rockmelt is a cracking social browser, built onto Google Chrome API. It’s sleek, sexy and quick. I’ve been using it a couple of days, and it already seems intuitive to me. Try it now, but be quick!

Happy surfing everybody, and I hope you have all had a great weekend.

Tell me what you'd bring to the campfire - leave me a comment!

The Campfire Effect in Social Media

2010-12-02T20:53:00.000Z

Picture Credit: Ian Patterson

I've been a very busy boy over the past couple of months. I'm currently working for a great company, in what is the biggest and most enjoyable work challenge of my life.

I often say to people that in order to be in contact with your audience, you need to inhabit the same spaces they do. Create a 'campfire', where people can feel comfortable having a conversation with you. But what happens if your campfire spawns another campfire? What happens then if somebody else from the same fire then breaks off and starts another? And so it continues, until you have a festival's worth of campfires, all discussing roughly the same thing.

What happens then? Where was the original fire? Can I get from one side of the campsite to the other? Why can't I interact with everybody?

Once you have a festival full of similar campfires, it can be very difficult to find your way again.

I was hired to be put in the middle of that festival, and told to help people find their way. To join all of the campfires. And that's what I am hoping to do.

If your company sounds like it's approaching the festival campsite scenario, you need to refine. I can't stress that enough. If you offer millions of choices, make sure there is a single concrete purpose behind those choices. If not? Consolidate. Marry content. Don't separate it. One campfire, multiple conversations. It's the way life works. We don't walk into a different room every time we talk about something different.

The logs are your company, and the fire is the passion you put into your social media strategy.

That's possibly the silliest thing I've ever said, but I think (hope) I've got a point.

Comment below if you think I don't, or you want to make a good point!

And if you have to read one book this week, make it this one.

New Twitter: New Facebook or New Coke?

2010-09-15T12:58:00.000+01:00

Hope that you are well. Apologies for the brief radio silence on the blog, it’s been an incredibly busy two weeks since I left London and relocated to Manchester with my lovely girlfriend Ana, and I’ve been really busy moving in and, well, working. So no blogging.

I’m currently sat here in lovely Islington (thanks to Emilio, Sarah and Tom for putting me up), putting the finishing touches to my Twitter presentation for tomorrow at the Marketers Forum. The new video and photo functionality on Twitter could be very exciting, and I wonder what it means for third-party apps, and how they can build the new functionality into their existing platforms.

Do we really want streaming video within our Twitter feeds? Is it really a location, in the same way that Facebook is a social location? Obviously not, but this move seems to be an indicator that potentially that is where the guys at the top want their platform to go…

What do you think of their chances of success? Is this a smart, or a stupid move?

Check out the video below previewing the new changes, and if you are coming to the event tomorrow, then see you there!

Does Ping Pong?

2010-09-02T22:11:00.000+01:00

After a typically cryptic invite, and much debate in the tech and music press, Apple have launched their new music-based social network, Ping, to a suitably salivating audience of tech geeks and fanboys. I'm not one of those bloggers who like to steal a march, and pretend that they have more hours in the day to sit up and review a new network and give it the thumbs-up or thumbs-down. It's too early to say whether Ping will be successful, and I'm not going to write a stunningly deferential review or a snarky obituary just yet. I'm going to have a bit more of a play with it and let you know when I feel like I can make an informed opinion.

That said - I think that Ping will fail.

Why? It's not an authentic enough experience for me.

The whole point of social media is to provide a forum for people to share experiences, to share pictures, events and music videos. Myspace put music and self-expression at the heart of it's service, and for a while, it ruled the roost, until it was usurped in the user-experience stakes by Facebook. Facebook, being an essentially silent platform, eventually added brand pages and music to their offering, allowing artists to express themselves and connect with their fans where they feel comfortable. Comfort - now there's a nice, warm, cuddly word/feeling...

Let me ask you a question - how many of you feel comfortable just hanging out in a shop?

Well, that's what Apple are asking you to do. Facebook serve advertising, but they are not primarily an eCommerce platform. Myspace have advertising and very heavy brand sponsorship, but they are not checkout heavy.

Ping is like the free coke the estate agent gives you when you come in to chat about a mortgage. They want you to, first and foremost, buy something, or go away. Sharing will always be secondary with Ping, as it's primary function is an eCommerce store.

That's not to say that eCommerce stores can't do it properly - ASOS and Amazon do a great job of creating a community that generates it's own content. They don't pressurise you into doing so, and they are honest and upfront about the fact that they are an online store.

Apple have just repackaged the iTunes store, got a few big artists on there, and yet they expect people to just blindly start using it, without asking any big, difficult, un-cuddly questions. That is not going to happen.

I love sharing content, and I love sharing information. Any site, network or service that allows me to do that is great in my book. But please, do me a favour first - declare your interests! I don't want a personal shopper, I want to share cool stuff with my friends. That's what social media, at it's very core, is all about. I certainly wouldn't say 'buy this album now', or 'listen to this thirty-second sound file THEN BUY IT'. I just want to share.

So Ping: you have a lot of questions to answer over the coming months. So get pally!

Have you used Ping yet? What do you think of it? Let me know in the comments section below...

MessageParty: making the social anti-social since 2010

2010-08-25T14:52:00.000+01:00

Is it just me, or is this advert for MessageParty slightly depressing in a post-apocalyptic, 1984-meets-iPhone kinda way?

It’s for a chat application that is pitched as location-aware.You can have a messenger conversation with a group of people at a conference, check in with people in a bar and talk about football, chat to people at the bus-stop about the weather...

Hold on a minute, isn’t that what basic human interaction is about?

This product to me is the antithesis of what social media is about. Social media should always supplement real-life interaction, not replace it. I can’t think of anything more depressing that standing at a bus stop in total silence, typing about how much I like cats and football to somebody stood next to me who I don’t even know, and probably won’t even see again. That’s not conversational, that’s just vomiting useless personal information.

Also, if I was making a presentation and a load of people were engaging in an IM conversation whilst I was presenting, then I think that I could safely assume that I’m not doing a good job, but also that if they have a strong opinion, they’re not very good at expressing it, and would probably prefer to snark about it to somebody they’re trying to impress two rows forward.

Whichever way you look, it's certainly the opposite of the cheery, leaf-kicking corporate image they're trying to put across...

Messageparty: Officially the most boring party on earth? Prove me wrong...

It's Foursquare vs. Gowalla vs. Facebook Places... Or is it?

2010-08-19T17:13:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, Facebook launched their new location-based features. Guess what it’s called? That’s right: Places.

A lot of people will be asking what this means in the long-term for Foursquare and Gowalla, and as usual, nay-sayers have already written both companies off as yesterday’s news, which is slightly lazy.

Who says Foursquare is finished? Not me.

Yes, Facebook is capitalising on the geo-location boom by adding the Places service to their mobile application. And yes, a lot of people new to geo-locational tagging will naturally default to that service.

But it’s all about the right mix of positive user experience, customer service and look and feel.

Yes, we know that Facebook cannibalised Myspace. But did Google Buzz cannibalise Twitter and Facebook? No, because it failed to provide a positive user experience, looked tacked-on and dated. But it’s still here, and I’m still using it for certain purposes. Ditto for Myspace and Twitter.

Why?

People will always want choice. The choice to choose to have their email account with one of the big four providers. They understand that their information is currency, and they won’t want to channel all of that information into Facebook.

Foursquare is young and agile enough to be able to adapt their service, and maybe offer new services that Facebook in its current form cannot offer. It has a head start in building client relationships. I’ve been lucky enough to chat to both Naveen Selvadurai and Ian Clearly of Foursquare when we were getting our brands Foursquare presence and special set up, and they literally bent over backwards to help. I even spoke to somebody on the phone to help set the special up. It felt to me like it was a star-up that cared about building bridges with a brand. For all of its qualities, I just don’t feel the same about Facebook. Places just feels like a land-snatch to me, but that’s me reacting to it on an emotional level I guess.

It depends how you want your ice-cream. Do you want three different types of vanilla, or do you prefer an online strawberry sundae?

New Digg - better than old Digg? [info-graphic]

2010-08-18T23:30:00.000+01:00

The new Digg has just launched, and I've got an invite to test out the new alpha version (along with millions of other people, including Bill Cosby hopefully).

I'm having a play with it at the moment, and I'll let you know what I think of it shortly, but in the meantime, here's a nice info-graphic I found on http://www.popjolly.com/

Via: School Online

What we can learn from Fabio Capello's treatment of David Beckham?

2010-08-16T16:11:00.001+01:00

Last week, Fabio Capello dropped David Beckham from the England squad.

On it’s own, this may have been a big story anyway (Beckham is one of the

biggest stars in the world, and helped to revolutionise personal branding

amongst sportsmen in the UK). But the way in which he did it was the most surprising.

He didn’t do it face-to-face.

He didn’t even give Beckham a call.

He did it LIVE ON TV...

To quote:

“Thank you for helping me during the World Cup, but probably (he) is a
little bit old.“I won’t be picking him for any more competitive matches, David
is a fantastic player, he was really important, but we have to see the new
players for the future because the age is important for a lot of people, not
only for David.”

Wow – this is one business announcement that should have been announced

internally first.

That is bad social business.

Why?

Fabio used the wrong line of communication: he chose an indirect medium to broadcast a message to Beckham, whether that was his intention or not. This is just the same as firing one of your employees over Twitter, or announcing mass redundancies on Facebook (you wouldn’t get many ‘likes’ for that one). It’s insensitive, and shows a lack of communication skills. Capello should know a lot better than that, as he is an experienced manager. To be poor at communication within a company is bad, as it can dent morale, but if you make that lack of communication public, watch your brand sentiment take a nosedive.

As a boss, you have to offer protection to your employees, and show tact.

Beckham may be 35, and he may not be fit enough to grace the Wembley pitch again, but he deserved to be told with a degree of dignity and diplomacy, and not broadcast over the airways in slightly more than 140 characters.

So please think about your friends, colleagues and co-workers before you

compose your next Tweet or status update. You could end up damaging friendships, as well as your brand's reputation.

And my message to Beckham? Well, thanks for the memories!

I Like Buzzin' Fly!

2010-06-30T14:12:00.000+01:00

Buzzin' Fly is one of my favourite labels of recent times. Set up in 2003 by Everything But The Girl's Ben Watt, the label runs out of Camden, and puts out some of the finest deep house and techno I have ever heard.

They are also a great example of how an independent label makes good use of social media and digital marketing. Although there are only three people working at the label (including Watt), they have a full set of good social media tools running from their incredibly functional website. Visit it now and have a look for yourself. Proof positive of a small indie label using social media effectively.

Keep checking this site for more on Buzzin' Fly - a feature is in the pipeline.

In the meantime, here's a real summer treat for you in the form of 'Shelter' by Jay Shepheard - this is a deep and as sunkissed a track as you are likely to hear this summer - enjoy.

Jay Shepheard 'Shelter' (Original Mix) (Extract) by buzzinfly

Social Media Bullshit, And How To Smell It!

2010-06-28T21:34:00.000+01:00

So I’m reading a load of Social Media blogs, and the usual touchy-feely stuff is coming through again and again and again. The usual Marketing Talk, and the endless self-promotion of so-called experts. I work in Social Media, yet I feel very little affinity to the self-appointed sages that seem to litter the online sphere at the moment.

I don’t like being negative, as I feel that too much negativity is like filling a rucksack with stones – a heavy, pointless burden that nobody wants to share with you (unless you are a masochist – if so here, have mine).

What a lot of people, and a lot of businesses don’t seem to understand is that the best tools on the market for Facebook page optimisation are free. Just look at Mashable for starters - most of the stuff your bog-standard S/M expert will tell you is on there first, and for free. You are being ripped off, and being kept in the dark about by the snake oil salesmen I see so often coming into work, hawking their two-bit social media plug-ins for upwards of £15k. It’s poor, it’s rubbish, and there is no excuse for it. It’s offensive that people will look to rip people off in that way. And that’s coming from somebody who works in the music industry (sorry, cheap joke – that’ll be 79p please).

All of the best inventions and shifts in the way we operate have been cheap to implement at the base level. You can draw an amazing picture with a nice pencil, if you have the focus and the ability. You can maybe make the lines a little more defined by buying a better pencil, but then you’d have to have the ability to draw in the first place.

A so-called social media expert would have you believe that if you buy a better pencil, you will be better at drawing. A good Social Media teacher will show you how to draw better with the tools you already have, and teach you with equipment that is cheap or free. And probably wouldn’t drown in pencil analogies like I just have. Tut tut, Stroud.

So the next time you get somebody pitching a Social Media product to you, just ask them the following questions.

1. Can you explain your product in one sentence without using jargon?

2. What other products are there like this on the market?

3. Who was your touchstone and who were your influences when developing your product.

4. How is this better that the free products on the market? In English please...

5. How much?

6. Why?

7. How can you break this price down into work undertaken? (i.e. Does this cost justify the man-hours they are putting in?)

And if you’re still none the wiser, here’s a simpler method:

Avoid this:

And watch this:

SMC Seattle May Event: How to Call BS on a Social Media Guru from SMC Seattle on Vimeo.

Diaspora: A Newer, Friendlier, More Open Facebook?

2010-05-17T21:19:00.000+01:00

I'm really excited about Diaspora.

After the massive (mostly justified) hoo-ha over privacy settings on Facebook over the past few days, hearing about this new, *free* (i.e you keep your private data private) open source social network is a real breath of fresh air, and could potentially be bad news for Facebook, which has yet again been rocked by new privacy allegations, after some cheeky scamps made a site that exposed just how public your data is.

(as a sidenote, it's interesting to see the 'I'm not racist but...' status update/misinformation is spreading very quickly. Looking at the way racists use social media looks like a bit of a dissertation-in-the-making).

The way I see it, Facebook is essentially a very old company posing as a new, cutting edge company. It is a glorified mall for you to hang out in, and whilst you can have fun with your friends in it, you get the sense that, well, it isn't really yours. This counts for brands as well. The whole experience seems to be run like a lease, and the landlords aren't very responsible with your information, farming it out to every site on the web in an attempt to seem open and honest - although not with you, the user. You want to leave? Fine, but we'll keep your information forever. Hey, you should have read the small print.

You may not be able to get your information back (yet), but you can pack your bags and go elsewhere. And if you are a brand? Well, then you can build a neat, bespoke social page that will really stand out.

Until then? Well, my advice is to basically share less if you don't feel comfortable.

Why Social Media Experts Make Me Vomit!

2010-05-16T01:48:00.000+01:00

I wish that I could say that I don't know, or haven't met anybody like this in my line of work before. It's part of the reason that I set up this blog (apart from showing off, obviously).

Social Media coverage, interest and chatter is reaching saturation point at the moment, and a lot of former 'SEO/Viral Consulants/Experts' (read: chancers) are hopping on the bandwagon, trying to lure you in with a lot of touchy-feely Innocent Smoothy-style marketing guff, basically telling you how fun it is to talk to your mates, and buy stuff, and keep in touch, on the internet. Really, you don't say.

So, to get back to the reason I set this blog up: I believe that everybody, whether they are a business or a normal person like you or me, can master the art of business on Facebook and Twitter. It's not rocket science, and you don't need to pay a company like this thousands of pounds to make your online presence nauseating. It's a sham. You can learn these skills. It just takes a bit of time, and a bit of reading. I will share as much as I know with you as I can. I'll tell you what I think is cool, and how to do it. I'll tell you what I think is shit. I'll be a bullshit filter for you if you want.

Deal?

Hope so.

Tweeting: Don't be a Dalek, just be yourself!

2010-05-14T13:08:00.000+01:00

I was having a good chat with my mate Sam this afternoon about the role of Social Media in eCommerce and the music industry. Sounds like a hoot (no pun intended), doesn't it?

Obviously, I won't bore you with the finer details, but the conversation started after a discussion started by at the way we Twitter, and how some companies and invividuals within them just refuse to understand Twitter, and just insist on shouting prices and information at people like a modern day sales gestapo.

This should never be the case. I mean, nobody really wants to shop with somebody who is just going to tell you to buy their product, or just fuck off? Unfortunately, that's how some businesses operate online, just barking offers at people and broadcasting prices at them whilst saying 'out now!' or 'buy now!' Real stores are, for the most part, not ran by Daleks. So why operate like this online? Why replicate the products you can find in a shop, but not the good customer service and product knowledge?

Be The Local Guitar Shop, Not The Music Superstore

One of my favourite places to hang out when I was younger was a guitar shop in Southampton. It wasn't the biggest, or cheapest guitar shop in town, but you could get a good deal if you paid in cash. The coolest thing about this place though wasn't it's products, or prices - it was the fact that you could go in there, hang out, play guitars and talk to people about music (which in the late 90s was pretty shit - remember Gay Dad? Space? Catatonia? You get the idea). The staff were friendly and knowledgeable - they clearly loved hanging out and playing music all day too. And you could spend a few hours there, only leaving with a 50p plectrum or some strings. But you had a good experience, and you'd definitely get all of your guitars, strings and things from that store. Not because it was the cheapest, but because you had a relationship and a loyalty to that store.

So, in short, in the online world, where you don't get the benefit of face to face contact, you need the next best thing - a friendly, helpful online presence. One that helps, and respects people rather than pissing on their goodwill by shouting prices at them. We can see what the price is. And you have to sell a lot more of them if you don't help out and be yourself around them.

My Picks Of The Week:

Nice Pair of free Moby Downloads from his last album (disclaimer - I work for Ministry of Sound!):

Nice bit of dirty Dutch house from Silvio Ecomo & Chuckie - Moombah (Afrojack Remix)

A Classic from The New York Dolls

Another cracker from Burns

And finally, this wicked free download from Disappears - Gone Completely - pure Iggy-esque carnage!

Have a great weekend!

Carpet Right Customer Services FAIL - A Warning from Facebook

2010-05-13T17:40:00.000+01:00

Just a quick note to any companies and customer service reps out there who happen to be reading this blog - these days, you can't put the phone down on a customer and expect the feedback to go away.

Facebook and Twitter haven't created negative feedback - they've merely given people a wider platform. If this issue would have been nipped in the bud with an apology, a bit of empathy, and some reassuringly good customer service (you are, after all, talking to a human), then this message probably wouldn't have gone out!

Social Networking: It's Your Privacy, It's Not Free!

2010-05-12T14:12:00.000+01:00

Just a quick follow up post to my earlier one about the problems with Facebook hiding our updates from the newsfeed.

One recurring theme that I have come across in many forums and blogs is that Facebook, Twitter etc., are all free services, as we do not pay a flat monthly fee, or get charged a pound or a dollar whenever we sign in. Therefore, when it goes wrong, we should shut up and take it.

In one sense, that is true. In another, it is so wrong it's laughable.

Social media is inherently and potentially costly. We are providing these massive companies with a wealth of personal information in exchange for using their services. Although this is something that I have no real problems with. What I also don't take issue with is that Facebook then make money out of our personal data by charging marketers to target their advertising towards us. That's part of the deal - read the terms and conditions.

What I do have a problem with, however, is the assumption on some of our parts and their part that we have no say in any changes to privacy, or mistakes in their service, as we are not paying customers. WE ARE PAYING FACEBOOK - we have paid them with our name, location (just wait until they unleash their Foursquare-killing geo-tagging service at the end of this month), email address, likes and dislikes (spread even wider now with their new open graph 'like' buttons), and we have invited our friends to get involved too.

So, next time you have a problem with Facebook, don't be afraid to be a nag. Shout loudly, complain, blog, Twitter. Because you are a paying customer, and you deserve a better level of customer service! Don't be afraid to rock the boat to get postive results.

And before I retreat to my Threads-esque underground paranoia bunker, can I just say that I can guarantee: if a major record label tried this kind of sh*t, they'd be nailed to a cross.

Facebook Newsfeed Down For Some, World Waits For Answer (Well, Geeks Like Me At Least)

2010-05-10T22:25:00.000+01:00

*UPDATE: Problem appears to be sorted, although stay tuned for more updates.*

Just to give you all a quick update - logged onto Facebook This morning, only to find that the previous healthy chat and posting and response rates on Facebook had all but died.

The reason? Our updates are not showing up in our fans newsfeeds! Why?

After searching the FAQ's, the 'help' centre, all of the possible sources, Facebook haven't dignified us with a blog posting or a response, as they clearly think because they have a free service, we should just put up with the bad customer (that is what we are - we have paid them by providing them with our personal information).

According to this page, Facebook will have the problem (with the servers) fixed by this Friday (the 14th). For users (and brands), who, like me, who like to keep their fans updated of the latest info, this is not good enough.

We'd like this fixed now Facebook, so please pull your finger out and get back to us. You owe us all an explanation.

Just remember that you are well within your rights to complain - it is not a free service, you are paying them with your personal information, which they are making money from.

SORT IT FACEBOOK!

4 Reasons To Not Leave Social Media To Your Intern

2010-05-07T14:16:00.000+01:00

Facebook? Check.
Twitter? Check.
Myspace? Check.

Ok, you've got all of the social media bases covered if you are in the music industry. But the important question besides 'What do you do with it' is 'Who will do it?'. It's s difficult question to answer, and sadly, one that many labels have not quite figured out yet. Here are a few tips.

Don't Broadcast: To some labels, Social Media is seen as a broadcasting system for their latest releases - so they send out several messages about releases, tours and events an hour, often saying the same thing, to an increasingly pissed-off audience who are not beholden or as financially invested in the label as you. So, in short, they will leave. This can be fixed with proper social media training and implementation.

Don't leave it to the intern: To a lot of labels, social media is seen as secondary to all other forms of communication, and is often palmed off to an intern. THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE. Social networks are your main point of communication with your biggest fans - they like you. They want to be given more reasons to like you. They want value. They want cool music. They are your core audience, and core demographic. Surely they deserve a bit more than a few spammy status updates and some broadcasts dictated by an intern. Give your fans value (communication + exclusive content), and they will love you even more.

Listen and learn: Just remember that it's good to talk to your fans, and involve them in your decision-making process. I mean that - don't just pretend to listen - that's possibly the most annoying thing you can do, and you will shed savvy fans quicker than you can say 'BUY THA NEW BIEBER SINGLE ITS DA BEZZT LOLZZZZZZ'.

But most importantly, be yourself: If you are a balls-out rock and roll label, ACT UP! If you are a serious minimal techno label, APPEAL TO THE TRAINSPOTTERS! You have a lot more in common with your cans than you think - so don't be afraid to chat to them as your equals. Chances are, they'll think you're pretty cool, so don't be afraid to recommend other bands and other labels. It's a conversation starter, and a way to gauge what your fans are in to apart from you. Using your fans as A&R? That's the true power of social media my friend.

Ben's music picks of the week (favourites old and new):

The Chemical Brothers - Swoon (Parlophone):

The brothers back on form? You'd better believe it. Loving this delicious slice of electro house with a bit of a classic Beloved-esque vocal refrain thrown in for good measure. HAPPY FUN TIMES!

Burns - Technique EP:

burns- teknique from Thomas Bachellier on Vimeo.

Can't find any clips of his upcoming mix album 'This Is Burns - European Sex Music Vol.1', but it's out June 7th. This is pretty damn hot, and we're going to be hearing a lot from him this year.

Rad Omen - Rad Anthem

RAD OMEN - "Rad Anthem" from Nicholaus Goossen on Vimeo.

You can download this bad boy for free from their bandcamp site. It's brilliant, but the video is even better. Genuinely unsettling, but in a good way.

5 Tips for Social Media Productivity

2010-05-05T17:39:00.000+01:00

It's hard to stay focused on your work in the busy environment of the music industry at the best of times. There's always a song to be heard, an artist to interview, or a new deadline that you already needed to have out of the way by yesterday. Chuck social media into the mix, with the multiple Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/Myspace interactions that are needed to work effectively, and you are already in for one hefty dose of screen time. And that's not even taking into account your Smart Phone.

It's tough, but sadly that's the way that work is. As some people say, you don't go to work to do work, you go there to get interrupted. But that doesn’t mean that you can't get your work done promptly, effectively and without the minimum of fuss. You have the right to join the online conversation with your brand, and you also have the right to do it without interruptions. After all, it's how you get the best results. Here are a few steps to achieving the best social media environment.

Go Mobile: Can't concentrate at your desk? Too much conversation, or too little conversation? Then why not move? Hop on a laptop, or head to another part of the office where you know that you won't be disturbed. Make sure you take a to-do list though, to keep on track, AND to marvel at how much more you can get done if you are sat somewhere interesting, without the world and their mum staring down your neck.

You don't need email/chat when you are social networking: Let's face it, we've all been in that situation where we're working away on a project/talking to users/writing a blog posting, when the little blue box in the bottom right of your screen appears with another 'high priority' email from the office worrier about a project due in two months time. But we still read it. And then respond to it. And then another. And another. Before you know it you're updating Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, your HR department, your manager and your partner's best mate on your various goings on. FOCUS! Get rid of the interruptions - shut outlook, shut MSN, focus on one browser window. You can either do one job well, or several to a competent level. Choose the former.

Still can't think? Go for a drink. Chained to your desk? Need to think of an idea to boost a Social Media campaign for one of your artists? Sat under some striplights staring at an empty desk and some toilets? Nice one, that's possibly the least inspiring place to sit and try and come up with an idea that will get fans and artists excited and connected. How can you correct that? Well, it's a lovely day outside, why not go for a walk around the block? Why not go and chat to a colleague about their day? Grab a drink of water (not coffee), and go and sit somewhere quiet with a pen and a pencil. Don't 'think outside of the box' - leave the bloody thing!

Explain: Explain to staff members what you are doing. Some might get a bit annoyed that you initially take a bit longer to respond to their emails, but stick to it if it works for you, keep calm, and explain what you are doing. Or maybe even set up an away message saying that you will respond to their email in a pre-defined time window. If you're half the dude I think you are, then you'll come back with a wicked answer to their query that required a lot more than the usual two seconds thought you give to an email.

Listen to something cool: Whether it's a podcast of your favorite music (my current favorite is the Hospital Records Podcast), or maybe one of the wicked interviews over at Big Think, listen to something that will get you thinking, and listen to something you enjoy. Who knows, the idea for your next campaign or blog posting could be hiding away there, so keep your ears open.

Got any more for me? Then chuck a few words my way in the box below...

Bebo - AOL's Loss, But Who Will Gain?

2010-04-08T11:19:00.001+01:00

We all remember AOL, don't we? Well, I do at the very least. I remember painfully slow dial-up connections, ICQ and AIM from back when I was a teenager. Oh, the fun I had with that, waiting an eternity to log in, hearing the familiar call from my mum downstairs.

"Nan's trying to call! Get off the internet!"

And then I moved to London, got broadband and never looked back, or used AOL services again. And it seems I'm not the only one - check this graph out (courtesy of Neoseeker.com)

That’s a pretty sharp decline isn’t it? And it coincided with the widespread proliferation of high-speed broadband. AOL was viewed as an Anachronism, and as it was merged with Time-Warner, a large, corporate one.

In 2008, in an attempt to reach out to a new audience and look for new avenues, AOL bought British social networking site Bebo for $850 million dollars. That’s a lot of wonga.

And what did that do with it? Well, nothing. No relaunch, no development, no integration into their other services (bar that lame duck AIM). As a result, the site has been left to stagnate, and trails Facebook’s 35 million active users (active being defined as updating your status every day) with 12 million active users, a large majority coming from Scotland, Ireland and the UK.

So, now AOL want to get rid of something that they paid close to a billion for, and have since spent nearly nothing on, yet still has 12 million active (mainly under 18) users.

In a memo sent to AOL staff yesterday, they stated:

"As we evaluate our portfolio of brands against our strategy, it is clear that social networking is a space with heavy competition, and where scale defines success. Bebo, unfortunately, is a business that has been declining and, as a result, would require significant investment in order to compete in the competitive social networking space. AOL is not in a position at this time to further fund and support Bebo in pursuing a turnaround in social networking."

The long and the short of this is that AOL rushed into the purchase of Bebo. It wasn’t fully aware of Bebo’s demographic, and once they realised that these kids were hard to sell to (as they don’t have their own money yet), they didn’t know what to do with it. So they pulled the plug financially.

This has been a long time coming, and is not necessarily a surpise, but talk of Bebo shutting down is pretty premature in my opinion. I know a lot of companies that would kill for an active userbase of 12million teenagers, and would know exactly what to do with it.

Disney?

Sony?

Nintendo?

The choices are limitless, and the rewards of purchasing this network could potentially be huge if somebody buys it with an open mind to ‘re-skin’ the brand as something to really appeal to teens, something AOL have failed dismally in doing.

Watch this space.

Unvarnished: Cyber-Bullying Made Simple?

2010-04-07T16:05:00.000+01:00

Workplace grudges. Whilst I would like to say that we all have them, the vast majority of us do not. I genuinely like (or at the very least respect) every person I have worked with on a professional level, and I would have no problem with saying that. After all, what's the point in harbouring bitterness, or even a grudge? Somebody once said that bitterness is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. Everybody loses.

But in the online world, a world that frees us from our traditional roles and responsibilities to be polite, respectful and courteous, we are free to say and do as we please (within reason). Whilst on certain levels this may be A Good Thing, a new site that has been launched could bring some of the carnage, flaming and trolling of the internet into our home and professional lives.

The sites name is Unvarnished, and it ended it's Beta testing last week. Launched by veterans of sites such as LinkedIn and eBay, the site allows users to rate their co-workers and bosses positively or negatively. Comments cannot be deleted from an account, but if the person in question does find one of these comments, they can take ownership of their profile and respond to the criticism. reviews are rounded up, and you are given a rating out of five, not unlike a video on Youtube, a track on iTunes or a DVD on Amazon. And it's really easy to do, as you can use Facebook Connect to sign in, adding that all important social media element to the whole, malignant process.

I'm sure when bosses or HR departments hear about this, they are going to go crazy. Finally, a reputation-gauge that goes beyond a person's CV, or their references! AMAZING! This is what people really think of them, so this is how good or bad they really are at their job! BRILLIANT, RIGHT?

Wrong.

With the rise in cyber-bullying amongst school children, and the water-cooler toxic culture of the workplace, is giving people the option to anonymously slate their peers or their boss really such a good idea? Whilst I understand the need to at least have a conversation about work practises, surely they should be had face-to-face? And when does a work gripe become a personal grudge? Since when has it been justified to sit there, glass of wine in hand, laptop on your knees, happily writing anonymous braodsides about somebody at work you just don't like. Wrong hair? Funny smell? Doesn't take part in your shitty chain emails? Then why not post a comment saying they failed to deliver on a major project. After all, it's totally anonymous. Head to head for a promotion with a colleague? Then just give them a bad write up on Unvarnished, then hope your bosses read it. Simples.

In the music industry, there is a lot of back-biting, back-stabbing and office politics. In short, it's pretty much the same as any other industry. I have worked for some cracking people in my time (my current employers are an example of this - I really enjoy working at Ministry of Sound), but I have also worked at some terrible places, where workplace bullying is the norm, and certainly places where this form of passive-aggressive bullying would be welcomed with open arms.

Who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys? That's not for me to say, it's not my place to slate or berate people online. It's immature. But I personally hope that everybody who posts a bad review about somebody on unvarnished feels a little bit dirty for doing so.

I'm very concerned that a site like this. Whilst giving you a certain degree of control over the conversations that are being had about you online, you cannot control your own profile, or delete comments that aren't true.

And although it may never take off in the UK, there are still plenty of reasons for concern for people the world over.

Unvarnished claim to be opening up a space for candid discussion. Well, let me put this challenge to you. If you are not essentially a front for cyber-bullying, then allow people to control what is said about them on their own profiles, and do not allow anonymous posting. If you care about the truth as much as you say you do, then honesty should not be an option, it should be mandatory.

I stand by everything I say, and I would expect others to do the same.

Unvarnished: Truth in Reputation?

Cyber-bullying for grown-ups more like.

For help and information about workplace bullying, visit read this Advicenow guide, and contact ACAS if you feel you are a victim. Nobody needs to, or deserves to be in this day and age.

PS: I'm not linking to the site, as I refuse to have anything to do with it!

Social Networking - It's The First Quarter Roundup!

2010-04-03T14:24:00.000+01:00

Guess what? I'm on annual leave next week, and I'm looking forward to every moment of it. The first quarter of the year is over, and already there have been a lot of developments in the social media sphere - I've written down a few of my thoughts on the biggest ones below

Foursquare: After a few irritating, stalled weeks on my Blackberry, is now working like a dream. Initially, like with most good ideas, I wondered what the fuss was about - but then again I guess more than a few of the 400 million Facebook users thought the same thing about social networking at first. It recently beat the 500k checkins a day mark, and looks set to go stellar in the next few months.

The big challenge for me to get my head around is how it's going to translate into a successful tool for the music industry. I've already sent it around my office, and all of the noises have been pretty positive. We're working on a few ideas at the moment. I'm not telling you them yet though. Mwah-ha-ha.

iPad: I've heard a few tastemakers and important people online wondering firstly, what is it going to replace, and secondly, contrary to Apple's claims, is it really any better than a cheap laptop/netbook.

My two penneth on the matter is that I think that it will be pretty successful, and that, as always, Apple will find a way for it to become indispensable to us. It will be harder for them this time around though - the iPod was a clear update on the previous clunky, truely dreadful portable MP3 players, and, well, the iPhone is simply an immense piece of kit. The appeal of the iPad is harder to distinguish, but we will see. The proof of the iPudding is in the, well, you get the idea. I won't be rushing out to get one just yet though.

Facebook: Facebook recently passed their 400 million users marker, and it is now the default location for people on the internet. With this in mind, brands have been greedily circling, waiting to pounce on your information to dessimate around their company, ensuring that sales people will start flooding your FB inbox with Viagra emails. Either that, or, well, they just want to inform you of special offers and incentives that you might not have otherwise heard of. Or they want to improve their customer service, or gauge feedback on products and services. Either way, Facebook's up-and-coming new privacy settings, which I would stake good money on giving less privacy to users and more leeway for brands to access fan information.

I think that more access for brands is a good thing. Why? Well, firstly, everbody has a right to privacy, but if you really value your personal information, don't share it in a semi-public forum. There is no shame in being ex-directory on the biggest phonebook in the planet, but please don't complain if you have the option to abstain.

Secondly, more access for brands will enable the good ones, the ones that care and understand the networks, to find out what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong. And that could ultimately be good for everybody's pocket.

Facebook's eagerness to please brands and their core users alike is in stark contrast to Twitter, who have kind of fallen by the wayside. Where are these premium services they have been promising for so long? A no-show on these at SXSWi was very disappointing, although @anywhere is a nice feature.

So, all in all, the first quarter of the online year has shaped up pretty nicely, and a lot of services are poised pretty nicely, like a ball ready to be volleyed into the back of the net. So we'll see what happens in the coming months. What it holds for the music industry? Well, we'll see.

Wish me luck on my week off!

And here's a couple great track to send you off into the Easter break - both from Professor Green. Enjoy!

Social Media Talk - Bullshit Baffles Brains

2010-03-25T13:43:00.000Z

You may have noticed that I haven't been posting on here as often recently. Trust me, it's not because I don't like you, or that I am dead. Or maybe I am. Woooooh.... Waaaaaahhhhhh.... Ghost noises, etc... Only joking... Or am I?

I am. Sorry.

But one of the big reasons is how tired I am becoming with the whole 'Social Media' bubble.

I mean, everybody's an expert these days, aren't they? Go on, seach Twitter. How many people describe themselves as social media mavens (I hate that description, it makes you sound like a character from Willow), visionaries, or maybe you're just a good old fashioned 'expert'.

So, let me start my rants with a simple list of definitions. If you're out in the Social Media wilderness, here are some handy, plain English translations and definitions for the type of Social Media people you will meet on the internet.

The Social Media Expert: Somebody who has read or at the very least access to an RSS feed of Mashable.

The Social Media Visionary: This person has a gift, but it's not in the obvious way (i.e. they are good at Social Media). This second type of person has the gift of self-promotion - they have graduated from the school of Twitter and Facebook Spamming with honours, and they are not about to let you forget about it. Most of their information comes from, yes, you guessed it - Mashable. The rest of it comes from either the wildest recesses of their imagination, or a well-thumbed copy of Wired that they found in the Job Centre. Avoid at all costs, as it will cost you a lot of money to get away from these snake-oil salesmen.

The Social Media Maven: They've clearly read and misinterpreted The Tipping Point; they have a vague background in marketing, and they have a vastly inflated opinion of theirselves. They don't want to chat to you about how to make money from Facebook, or improve your relationship with your customers - they want to 'create a multi-faceted engagement experience which creates synergy between your content hub and your social media channels, thus improving the customer engagement experience in a way that is tangible when strict metrics are applied'. Which is basically what I just said in half the time. So, once again, avoid.

Most are the human equivalent of dud cheques - expensive to cancel, and the charges are astronimical. Avoid.

Over the coming weeks, I'll be doing my best to talk about social networks in a measured, reasoned manner, without resorting to empty buzz-phrases. In the meantime however, here is a clip of a man being shot whilst taking out his bins. Enjoy.

Facebook Analytics Tools - Not Good Enough

2010-01-26T13:53:00.000Z

Before I begin, let me just go on the record and say that I am a big fan of Facebook, and in particular, the potential that Facebook has unlocked for brands online. Years ago, companies would kill for the sort of interaction and engagement that a Facebook fanpage offers. And this is why I'm so annoyed with them at the moment. Because they give with one hand, and stifle with another.

Sure, you can now measure post impressions and engagement per post (although there are still doubts over it's effectiveness) - but what good is this data if the original insights reports you give us are soooo slow?

The brand that I work for require weekly reports. At the moment, I am waiting for Facebook to even get started on crunching last week's data. That is over seven days, and that in my opinion is not acceptable.

If Facebook want to hive off user information, and prevent other companies from exploiting them, then that's fair enough (I'd hate to think that my every utterance was being tracked and marketed to). BUT like it or not, brands have big presence on Facebook, and they deserve proper analytics tools that work. And it should be their priority, rather than pissing off their millions of users.

So in short: FACEBOOK - Give us some tools we can use.

Add to this another misfiring analytics tool (which I won't name at this moment), and we have the ingriedients for a very pissed-off Social Media Coordinator. And whilst we're on this subject - anybody got a better name for somebody who works in Social Media? It's starting to get really overblown and pretentious, and I want something that doesn't use the words Social Networking or Media. Any ideas?

The A&R Man

2010-01-24T19:04:00.000Z

What is this closer to - reality or fiction?

A little from column A, and a little from column B I think...

Backyard Recordings - Realising The Value of Free Content.

2010-01-10T15:30:00.000Z

An interesting email dropped into my inbox on Thursday from a PR company. I'm pretty used to them, as I have been writing about music for quite a few years now, but this one was different to the other ones that send links to albums, singles and suchlike. It was not only offering me a copy of the single to review ('Love Harder' by Ali Love), but also to share with the readers of my blog, free of charge.

That's right - the lead track from the release. Totally free.

It's an interesting, bold and applaudable approach from the record label in question (Backyard Recordings). Being media-savvy, they realise that by looking on the blogosphere that building a buzz on an artist doesn't necessarily mean just soundless, preachy and frequently badly-written reviews of the single. That in my (and their) opinion doesn't constitute best use of social media/blog platforms.

Rather, they understand the best way to build buzz is to let people share and enjoy the artist's music. They will be repaid in purchases of gig tickets, of the various remixes on offer, and the best form of reviewing in this tech-savvy world - people commenting on how much they like a track.

Online music journalism the likes of Drowned in Sound and Pitchfork specialise in are a dying breed - outdated, faceless and self - important. People want to have a recommendation, then make up their own mind. Good music will always out.

Speaking of which, here is the single and download. Enjoy!

Ali Love - Love Harder (Extended Version) by benstroud

2010?

2010-01-03T11:27:00.000Z

If 2009 was the year that companies of all shapes and sizes started playing around with social media. 2010 is the year where things get serious.

The biggest challenge by far facing anybody in the music industry is how we can make best use of the social networking tools available to us. In the past, it has been a great promotional tool, and more recently it has been harnessed to take customer service to the next level - I use my companies Facebook and Twitter pages to not only talk to fans about upcoming releases, features and sharing user-generated content, but also to gauge response and deal with any queries and issues they may have. It's stating the obvious, and many people have said this before, but I'd much rather have people having a moan on our official pages than going elsewhere.

But with Dell making a ridiculous amount of money through their Twitter account, the CEO's of music industry will be looking to these companies, and then looking at their own online operations, and asking 'Why aren't we making that much?'. It's a valid question, but not one that is easy to answer.

The campaign to get Rage Against The Machine to number one at Christmas was a real eye-opener (whatever you may think of it) on how social media can be harnessed to directly drive record sales. But that was a one-off campaign - can this formula be applied to a four, maybe five single + album campaign without pissing off your audience?

Setting up a revenue stream though social networks has to be the priority for 2010, and not just in a BUY ME! Sense. We need to be intuitive, and find out what our fans are willing to pay for, and what they are not willing to pay for. This may prove to be uncomfortable reading, but maybe we just need that punch in the face verified, so both parties can move on and find new ways of doing business (a dirty word, I know).

The punch in the face in question? The world saying 'We don't want to pay for digital downloads anymore'.

The solution? Well, if you've read this blog before you know my thoughts on the subject (people don't want to pay for music anymore, but they will pay for premium experiences and product), but let's see what the rest of the industry comes up with in the coming months.

Happy 2010!