Category: social media

  • a lousy little sixpence

    a lousy little sixpence

    A man walks into a bar and shouts “hi, I’m entering Big Phil’s Italian restaurant competition to win a free a pizza in exchange for irritating you fine folk”

    Would you drink with that guy? Or for that matter buy a pizza from Big Phil?

    Yet thousands of people are prepared to give away their online reputations in return for the chance of winning a pizza, getting a free mobile phone or getting the tab picked up at an expensive restaurant. It’s a great testament to the power of freebies.

    It’s a rather quaint that as many bloggers and Twitterarti are prepared to give the last rites to the traditional media channels, some are picking old media’s worst habits of payola and thinly veiled cash, or favours, for comment.

    The worst area for this is in the food blogs where a number of successful bloggers now post more reviews of PR driven freebies than another posts as the big, well funded restaurateurs find these blogs are good alternatives to the crowded review pages in the major newspapers.

    It isn’t just food bloggers though, we see this in the tech, fashion, travel and even the “mommy bloggers” field as enthusiastic PR agencies convince their clients, correctly, that these sites offer motivated and loyal readerships to their clients.

    The really sad thing is that the bloggers don’t need to selling out so totally, not writing about every freebie they’re offered actually increases the value of those they do write about.

    Another point of course is few bloggers live on freebies and in the case of the food bloggers, partaking in the town’s best eateries a couple of times a week is probably going to leave you dead, or at least with a severe case of gout, by 40 anyway.

    So what’s the problem? If a company wants to give something away to someone who is happy to talk about it, isn’t it a win for everybody?

    Maybe, but when you’re regularly taking freebies, the question becomes how many other things you talk about are freebies. More importantly, your reputation is now tied up with the products you are touting. Even worse, your brand becomes tied up with the agendas of public relations agencies in exactly the same way the old mainstream media has been.

    There’s a power inbalance here as well as the old media has it’s mastheads to stand behind. Should there be a falling out between the media outlet and the agencies or their clients, it’s rarely the newspaper, radio or TV station that loses if someone makes a fuss.

    A travel, tech or restaurant reviewer for a major newspaper or magazine can hide behind their employer’s good name and if a corrupt journalist moves on, their name will be quickly forgotten.

    There’s no such luxury for an individual blogger as their site’s credibility is their only asset and their online credibility is entwined with their offline, professional reputation.

    This isn’t to say bloggers or anyone else should take freebies, I’d be an unrealistic hypocrite to suggest that. Free samples and meals go with the territory of having an influential outlet or a big, enthusiastic audience.

    But perhaps it’s time for people to say “no’ to these online competitions that ask you to spam your friends and followers and for successful bloggers, maybe suggesting to some of these PR agencies that their clients would be better served buying advertising space on the sites rather than offering a free meal to later be dressed up as a review.

    Having a big, enthusiastic audience is a fantastic asset and a great achievement to those who’ve built those tribes of followers to their websites and twitter feeds. It’s an asset worth guarding and respecting.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Choosing your friends

    The signing up of web entrepreneur Jason Calacanis to a somewhat unsavoury Facebook Group illustrates the danger of befriending strangers online.

    It’s been a bit of game harvesting followers on Twitter, friends on Facebook and connections on LinkedIn with people desperately befriending strangers from around the world with little thought on who these people really are.

    While this has been good for people who measure themselves by the number of people they claim to know, it really hasn’t added value to most people’s networks.

    The real value is in connecting with people whose ideas, interests and lifestyles are of interest to you. It could be your family, your old school and work mates or someone who shares your passion for cat shampooing.

    Reduce these social media channels just to a numbers game and suddenly these networks have no value except to the small group of uber users who’ve it their life mission to harvest a million followers.

    For normal people with lives, careers and other interests there’s no point in treating Facebook as a competition to gather the most friends. The whole aim of these online networking channels is to enhance your life, career and interests.

    That’s why we all should take care with the people we befriend online and only choose those who we know and respect. We are judged by the company we keep.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Thoughts on Media140

    This post was part of the Media 140 Australian Politics of which I was kindly invited as a guest blogger. The focus on the afternoon panel is because this was the specific session I was asked to cover by the organiser, Julie Posetti.

    After an election what panelist and political cartoonist First Dog on the Moon
    described as “three months of despair” a review from a panel of cartoonists,
    photographers and other outliers of the Australian political journalism was always
    going to be well received.

    First Dog’s comments showed the general despair by the electorate at large towards
    a bland performance by both major political parties, particularly in their use of new
    media tools.

    The rest of the afternoon panel on “alternative views on political news” shared First
    Dog’s general attitude, but luckily they made up for that despair with an entertaining
    and funny take on the election and pricking some of the pomposity that can surround
    the social media communities.

    Malcolm Farnsworth (@mfarnsworth) put this best when he described much of
    Twitter as “ego, brown nosery and wankery”. Surprisingly this was taken well by the
    room.

    His point is valid though, we need to keep in mind that one of the attractions of social
    media is we can choose our own friends, particularly in Twitter where we can restrict
    our social circle to those we like and agree with.

    A few of the questions from the floor recognised this as did Julian Morrow
    (@moreoj) with a shameless plug for The Chaser’s iPhone App. In an earlier session
    Claire Wardell had shown how new media isn’t just Twitter and tools like apps and
    clever websites can drive the political discourse just as well as a witty tweet.

    Julian also showed how The Chaser crew were ahead of the curve with taking a
    failed newspaper empire online in the late 1990s. Although his line about Twitter giving “the monkeys the typewriters” also betrayed a Rupert Murdoch style bitterness towards
    new media.

    To further move the issue from social media, Peter Bowers (@mpbowers) raised
    the issues of photographers’ rights and payments, citing the Hudson River plane
    crash as a good example where an agency snapper would have received some
    large rights payments for the early photos of the aircraft floating down the river.

    Peter moved into another aspect of social media and the perils for photographers
    when talking about Parliamentarians taking photos from the floor of the house. In
    the Australian Parliament, there are strict rules about the use of images and he had
    once been bought before the Privileges Committee for breaching the rules with the
    possibility of gaol time for contempt of Parliament.

    What this illustrated in Peter’s opinion was how laws haven’t kept up to date with
    technology. We could also say it’s another example of how people don’t understand
    the real time consequences of seemingly trivial online actions.

    As one of the final sessions for the day, the session was good opportunity to liven up the room with some funny, out of the box and thinking that shot down the thought that the day would be a Twitter love-in.

    Overall, Media140 was a success in examining how the new online tools are changing
    politics and the reporting of it. Having Claire Wardell’s UK perspective and Jeffrey

    Bleich’s view from the Obama campaign showed just how far Australia has to go with
    these tools.

    Probably the biggest message was from the journalist participants – it’s clear many are
    uncomfortable with the public being able to work around the gatekeepers and some
    are downright scared of the abuse they think they receive from the community.

    “It’s all about getting paid” one journalist said. You can’t help but think that was the
    same thing bleated by the loom weavers of 200 years ago.

    What we saw from the OzPolitics Media140 is a community and society in great
    change: The political parties, media and the electorate are working through how these
    tools are going to change the way we vote and how our governments work.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Five rules to protect your online reputation

    Last week’s tearful apology by Australian swimmer Stephanie Rice for an inappropriate comment about a Rugby score on Twitter is reminder to all of us that nothing on the web is a private conversation.

    Over the years we’ve learned email can be a dangerous medium as messages can be endlessly copied and forwarded. The infamous Claire Swire email where a group of young London lawyers trashed a girls, and their own, reputations was lesson we all learned from.

    Today, we have far more opportunities than just email to make idiots of ourselves online and damage our own reputations, so here’s a few ideas on protecting yourself online;

    Everything is in writing

    Internet communication is largely written. If you wouldn’t an off colour joke or disparaging comment about a colleague in a letter, then you shouldn’t put it online.

    The Internet is permanent

    The little electronic bits and bytes might be transient, but what you write will be stored in numerous places. Even if you delete an inappropriate comment from your inbox or Facebook page, someone will be able to recover it.

    Online privacy doesn’t exist

    Given private conversations can be copied and forwarded, you need to assume that nothing online is private. If you’d have trouble explaining something to your mum, boss, minister or your investors then you shouldn’t write it.

    The real world rules apply online

    There’s a touching naivety about the online world with a belief that the Internet is immune from the rules of the “real” world. The truth is that the net is part of the real world and the rules and laws that govern our daily lives apply online as well — securities law, defamation and just plain good manners are as valid in cyberspace just as they are in the pub or boardroom.

    Apologise quickly

    We all make mistakes, and when we do it online news spreads fast. So a prompt admission and apologies to anyone concerned is the best way to defuse embarrassment.

    The best thing though is to ask “would my mum be happy reading this” before pressing the send button. If you don’t think she would, then you might want to think about things before letting a comment off into the wide world of the web.

    While the Internet is the most powerful tool available to businesses big and small, we need to always remember that powerful tools have to be used with care. Thinking before you post should be the first rule for online communication.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • The good news difference

    Last week, children from around New South Wales gathered at the Sydney Opera House for The Festival of Choral Music. Over the four days the event is run each year, over 2,000 kids perform in the choirs, bands and ensembles.

    Sitting among the proud parents in the audience on one of the nights, I listened to the positive, enthusiastic and uplifting performances and wondered why we aren’t telling more good news stories.

    We all have positive stories about our businesses and there’s a demand for them; it’s no coincidence two of the most popular Internet clips of the year have been the Old Spice Commercial and Air New Zealand “crazy about rugby” safety video. Both are fun, upbeat and quirky messages.

    The Air New Zealand clip also shows how we can make what’s usually a collection of stern warnings into an entertaining topic. It’s also one of the few flight instruction clips that actually shows where the life jackets are, how the oxygen masks work and clearly explains how to share them with children.

    An entertaining and humorous message is worth a thousand dour and negative lectures. Let’s get some light into what we’re telling the world about ourselves.

    While we can’t afford to buy the NZ All Blacks or hire actors and former NFL players like Isaiah Mustafa, the star of the Old Spice commercial and follow clips taking messages through Twitter, we can be telling our stories through positive and entertaining messages.

    With our websites, newsletters, social media feeds and the traditional marketing and communications channels we no shortage of ways to tell the world what we’re doing; let’s get out and do it.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts