Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Author: Paul Wallbank

  • The polite victory

    I’ve discussed before how manners matter online. A bizarre exchange illustrates this and how you can lose an argument by being rude online.

    The exchange started with a New York Times article on the Qantas A380 emergency in Singapore. The final paragraph in the piece claimed the airliner’s Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) didn’t work properly;

    “Even the cockpit voice recorder did not work right, according to a report by Australian investigators. It failed to halt when the plane landed, and because it operated in a two-hour loop, the critical periods were recorded over.”

    That nugget of information lead me to tweet out the following;

    A few hours later, the following tweets appear;

    On protesting I wasn’t posting “deliberate & malicious misinformation”, I’m then told I’m a liar;

    From there conversation doesn’t go far and I end up blocking the guy so I can no longer see his twitter posts.

    The funny thing is the gentleman is correct in saying the A380’s CVR worked properly, as the Australian Transport Safety Board states on their website;

    “The cockpit voice recorder was transported to the ATSB’s technical facilities in Canberra, Australia for download and analysis. Over 2 hours of cockpit audio was recovered. However, due to the failure of the No 1 engine to shutdown in Singapore, and therefore continuing power supply to the recorder, the audio at the time of the engine failure well over 2 hours before the No 1 engine could be shut down, was overwritten. That said, elements of the available audio are expected to be of assistance to the investigation.”

    QF32’s Cockpit Voice Recorder didn’t fail, it’s designed to turn off when the engines shut down and as the crew couldn’t turn one of the engines off the CVR kept going and ultimately overwrote the critical parts of the flight. Which isn’t the fault of the recorder at all.

    I was wrong.

    Now, had the gentleman suggested something along the lines of “Paul, you’re misinformed. CVR worked fine. Read the ATSB report” I’d have read the correct report, apologised and moved on. However this gentleman chose to be rude and aggressive.

    Thankfully the worst that can happen online is a flurry of rude words followed by one or both of the people blocking the other, in the real world behaving like this – say by barrelling up to someone in a bar and calling them liar – probably isn’t going to work out as well.

    Which shows how in the online world, just as in the real, offline community, manners do matter.

    Choose your words before disagreeing with someone, just as being aggressive at the school hall isn’t going to work out well, it probably won’t online either.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • the price on our heads

    the price on our heads

    Over 500 million people have signed up on Facebook, trading their privacy for the ability to connect with friends and online communities. In turn, Facebook has built that massive group of people into an asset worth an estimated $41 billion dollars. But does it rely on us selling our privacy too cheaply?

    A common factor in many of our communication channels in the last fifty years has been how we, as a group, have been prepared to trade something personal in return for a cheap service.

    Broadcast media’s model offers us free or – in the case of newspapers, magazines and Pay TV – subsidised news, sport and entertainment in return for shrill or intrusive commercials that usually wastes our time.

    Similarly with social media tools, in return for a free and easy way to find friends and relatives, we trade our privacy for targeted online advertising which can be so precise a commercial can be designed just for one individual.

    The social media advertising model is on many levels a great idea, it cuts out irrelevant messages to the consumer and for the advertiser it’s more effective than the “throw it against the wall and see what sticks” methods of the broadcast advertising world.

    A weakness in social media advertising in that it relies on users being prepared to trade away their privacy. Until now, all of us have been fairly relaxed about this despite the evidence mounting that giving away all our privacy and access to our networks often has costs to our reputations and friendships.

    That cost can be great,  with the worst case seeing people lose jobs, friendships or even their liberty for something that they, or one of their friends, thought was quite innocent.

    Under the old trade off, we could turn off the TV or not buy a magazine if we found the advertising too distracting or offensive. With new media we can’t recover our privacy once it’s been given away.

    As we begin to understand the nature of our connected society and the values of our online reputations, we’ll expect a better price for our privacy. The challenge for platforms like Facebook and other social media tools over the next few years will be to convince us that these trade offs and potential risks are worthwhile for the benefits they offer.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts

  • focusing on the product

    Chris Thomas’ Smartcompany column last week suggested the latest Google search changes will see a lot of wasted Search Engine Optimisation investments, this saga illustrates a couple of peculiarities about the Internet that all business owners should keep in mind.

    The most important is that almost all the Internet tools we use are privately owned. When we use Google, Facebook, Twitter or any of the myriad other online applications, free or paid for, we are beholden to their regulations.

    Nipplegate was a good example of this, regardless of how silly Facebook’s rules are regarding nudity it is their their sandpit and if we want to play in it we have to agree to their rules.

    This is why it’s important we have our own websites, so at least we have some control over our content and a central place for our customers to find us regardless of other sites rules and problems. Although your own web address is still subject to the sometimes arbitrary whims of domain registrars and Internet filters.

    We also need to be careful of not getting too obsessed about the net. Often we spend too much time perfecting our SEO strategy, harvesting likes on Facebook or gaining Twitter fans. It’s like the days when we discovered desktop publishing and whittled away hours playing with fonts and the position of clip art.

    Getting the fonts, web key words or Facebook page right is important, but we should never forget that it’s our product that matters. The best website in the world means nothing if we aren’t delivering a product our customers believe is value for money.

    Big businesses are struggling with this because in the days of mass media it was possible to bury your mistakes under an avalanche of advertising, for smaller business without a corporate marketing budget they had to deliver a consistently better product or they’d be extinct.

    Today, the tables have been turned in that small businesses can afford to be distracted by the bling of cheap, easily accessible online marketing and lose touch with the people that really matter – our customers.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • The end of the troll

    The end of the troll

    Australian union leader Paul Howes today claimed in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph that New Media is denigrating politicians. His point being anonymous users on newspaper websites (such as the one he writes for) and online services like Twitter encourage abuse and slander which is degenerating politics and media discussion.

    The rough and tumble of the Internet was raised during the Canberra Media140 conference last September where conversation turned around Liberal politician Joe Hockey’s comment that anonymous, banal tweets was causing him to lose faith in online services like Twitter.

    Media140 provided more discussion about anonymity when The Australian decided to out the anonymous blogger Grogs Gamut, aka Greg Jericho. Greg wasn’t being abusive however his commentary had clearly found its way under the skin of some members of the Canberra political classes.

    But does anonymity matter?  We are kidding ourselves if we believe we are truly anonymous on the Internet. Few of us have the skills or diligence to fully hide our tracks from people we offend or upset.

    Anonymity also discredits much of a person’s statements – as both Paul and Joe have pointed out, if you aren’t prepared to put your name to your views then there is a good argument that your opinions are really worthless.

    However that argument ignores the power imbalance between the ordinary citizen who may find their career at risk by stating their views, as Greg Jericho found, and politicians and those working for political parties or allied organisations, like Joe and Paul who are protected by powerful and often tribally loyal party structures, PR machines and compliant journalists.

    Probably the part that’s most disingenuous though about Paul Howes’ article is that anonymous Internet commenters are dragging politicians down. Sadly our politicians did that job themselves long before social media or web2.0 based websites came on the scene.

    Today’s politicians are only reaping what they have sown themselves. Paul and Joe’s mentors – people like Graham Richardson, John Howard and Bob Carr – went out of their way to pander to and encourage the shrill, anonymous harridans of talkback radio.

    Unfortunately for today’s politicians, the Internet doesn’t have the same gatekeepers in the form of friendly announcers, producers and editors to save them from the public’s genuine, unfiltered opinions.

    The fact many of those anonymous comments – whether online or in more traditional media channels – may be true is another thing to consider; that people genuinely believe these politicians are doing the wrong thing. Rightly or wrongly, is that the fault of the Internet, or the fault of those politicians and their advisors who claim to have wonderful communication skills?

    Internet anonymity is not perfect, and often not right, but the privilege of being able to make an anonymous statement is a fundamental part of a working democracy.

    It’s not surprising our current generation of spin-doctored, on-message politicians feel threatened by a medium they struggle to understand or control, but that isn’t the fault of the anonymous online troll who could turn out to be what ultimately saves our democracy.

    Similar posts:

  • Choosing a mobile phone plan

    What’s your budget?

    This is the most important point. What can you afford?

    Be careful though as plans can be deceptive with a number of traps.

    Understand your usage

    Have a read of your bill and understand how you use your phone. Total up the number of calls you make and who make them to. Many providers allow you to download an electronic copy of your bill which you can then analyse your bill with.

    If you do that, look at the total number of calls you make each month and the average time of those calls. You’ll find this is important as various plans have different billing periods and flagfall requirements.

    Call rates

    This is one of the trickiest areas to deal with on phone plans. Keep in mind each plan has unique tricks like minimum charges and flagfalls. So one provider offering 50c per 30 seconds call with a 35c connection fee may be cheaper for many of your calls than a provider offering 90c per 60 seconds with a 40c connection fee. This is why it’s important to check the average call costs.

    Friends deals

    Many providers have plans where calls between people on the same network are free, or you can nominate friends for a discount rate. If there’s a small group of friends you call a lot, it’s worthwhile looking to see if you can save money that way.

    Don’t ignore data

    In the age of the smartphone, data is now a major revenue generator for mobile phone companies. Have a close look at your data usage and keep in mind everytime you check your email, look up a bus timetable or find a restaurant you’ll be downloading data. This can add up and if you are going to be a regular user of online services you shouldn’t choose a plan with less than 1Gb download.

    Coverage

    It’s important to remember that the phone and the plan are pointless if you can’t get a signal. Check with the store before buying that your home and work can get a reliable connection. Also, if you’re going to be on the road a lot you’ll need to choose the provider who covers those areas well.

    The best way of finding out is to ask your friends and colleagues how they find their connections. They’ll have the best feedback on which providers have the most reliable service.

    Roaming

    If you travel overseas you’ll find international charges can be a killer, so check carefully what you’re up for when you’re travelling.

    Locked phones

    When entering a plan, you may find the “free” handset included is locked to the network you’ve signed up to. If you want to “unlock” it, there’s usually a fee of several hundred dollars to release your phone from captivity.

    Watch your bills

    The danger period when entering a new plan is the first few bills. This is when any hidden traps can bite you. Check those first couple of bills carefully to make sure there are no surprises.

    If you find any bill shocks, take a deep breath and call your provider. Should it turn out the plan doesn’t cover something, the phone companies will usually move you to the next plan up that will keep you within your budget.

    Mobile phone plans

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts