Whatever...

Are Web 2.0 and quality control incompatible?

By Laura Mead

I was recently introduced to Andrew Keen in an article I read on his latest book, The Cult of the Amateur , which outlines his controversial take on the state of the internet today – particularly those pesky Web 2.0 applications that have invaded our lives recently.  In a somewhat over the top manner, the article goes on to detail Keen’s personal relationship with the internet – for good and for bad…

After reading the article, I was tempted to jump on the bandwagon that proclaims Keen a contentious, self-righteous cynic.  But instead, I took a step back to try to understand what it is that he is in fact trying to convey.  While I certainly don’t want to go back to a completely paper-based life, I do think he raises some important points about the path the internet is taking at the moment. 

What really strikes a chord with me is Keen’s take on the content available online today.  Thanks to Web 2.0, essentially anyone can post information – in any format, any language and with no one overseeing it.  So, what exactly does this mean for the quality of the information itself? 

I had already started thinking about this issue when I gave in to peer pressure and signed up to Facebook.  While I’m continually floored by the features offered on the site, some of the content that gets posted (or ‘published’) is appalling.  I find myself trying to decipher the oh-so fashionable ‘txt’ messages, and wondering what state the English language will be in soon. 

And with some of the wall postings, groups, photos, and videos floating around on people’s sites, I wonder how this will impact the way we continue to communicate with each other.  With email nearing the end of its heyday, is this the next stage - instant communication via Facebook-like applications instead?  It seems such a crazy idea!

There’s no doubt that Web 2.0 applications are here to stay and that – even more importantly – they are set to drastically change both our personal and business lives.  It took YouTube no time to become all the rage – boasting an impressive 10% of all web traffic and proving that there is a desire for innovative technology to drive new forms of ‘communication’.  One thing’s for sure – as the various ways we communicate become more integrated, Web 2.0 will surely only become more dominant. 

So, although I agree with Keen in that much of the content we are exposed to today is ‘second rate’, I don’t think we have any choice but to embrace this new wave of communication.  The issue then becomes – as Keen rightly points out – how we control the content that’s being created.  There’s still a long way to go, but as with anything new, I think it’s only a matter of time before we figure out how to manage the unwieldy Web 2.0 beast.   

When PR goes flat…

By Claire Ayles

The latest spin from inside the wonderful world of PR is that flat organisational structures – where all agency staff have the same job title regardless of their seniority, experience or ability – are the way to go. 

The reason for this?  Well, according to one Soho-based tech agency, employees ‘should be judged on what they know rather than what it says on their business cards’.

Apart from this totally missing the point that job titles ARE a reflection of how much you know, I'm also rather cynical about the motives behind this trend.   

For one thing, there's a major shortage of good tech PRs at the moment, so some firms may be tempted to employ people and pass them off as more experienced than they really are.  After all, when everyone's a 'Consultant', how can you really tell if their experience amounts to ten years of strategising for blue-chip clients or a fortnight's work experience photocopying press cuttings?   

But why should agencies be scared of clients not valuing less experienced staff?  New execs can bring fresh ideas and energy to accounts and shouldn’t have to be hidden behind generic job titles. 

Clients know agencies employ staff with a mix of experience, so why not just be open and honest about it?  After all, homogenisation can easily work against you.  For instance, if I was a client and I was given a PR team where each member had the same title, I'd just assume this was because everybody was junior rather than brimming with experience.

Finally, good agencies are built on motivated staff – and one sure way of improving performance is the carrot of promotion.  We all want external recognition for our personal successes, but celebrating the fact that you've been promoted from 'PR expert' to, err, 'PR expert' is just laughable. 

The crux of my problem with this is that the PR industry already has a dreadful reputation for peddling half-truths and this only adds fuel to the fire.  The last thing we need is to become even less transparent to our prospective clients.

Let's all take a bite out of Apple!

By George Mensah

Apple has become the fashion label of the tech world, with the iPhone – its latest ‘must-have’ offering – dropping from the same branch as its illustrious predecessors, the iMac, the iBook and of course the iPod.  However, this time, Apple seems to have taken the concept of its products being embodiments of individuality and exclusivity to an excessive level.

The current iPhone package ties users to a two-year contract with service provider AT&T.  Apple’s keenness to strike up a long-term deal with just the one service provider is quite a new concept in itself, as phone companies for the most part do this on a very temporary basis.  But the real issue is whether Apple is abusing its position by removing freedom of choice in the market. 

This restricted usability has led to Uniquephones – a UK firm that specialises in unlocking phones – hacking through Apple’s software restrictions and enabling the phone to potentially be used over other providers’ networks.  Uniquephones has even said that it is willing to face the legal wrath of Apple to provide this service.

This news has been widely welcomed, with a reported 150,000 showing interest in ‘re-fitting’ their SIM cards and firmware with Uniquephones’ software upgrade.  This is a great example of a consumer revolt in action, with many contract phone users clearly unwilling to sacrifice cross network freedom for the sake of the iPhone and its features.  They want it on their own terms and are refusing to play Apple’s exclusivity game.

If nothing else, this should act as a reminder to Apple that most people want technologies that fit in with their own personalised way of doing things.  As delicious and appealing as the exclusive iPhone deal might be, there is a fine line.  It will either pave the way for a change in conducting business in mobile space or the lack of cross over functionality may just be too much for users, in which case Apple will have to offer the phone on all networks sooner rather than later.

Apple would have us think it’s produced another untouchable fruit from its technological tree of knowledge - but right now, its wisdom is in question.

Guest blog - Shut up and start arguing....

As well as being a platform for JKers to have a good old rant about the world of technology and PR, 'Whatever...' will periodically be running guest blogs from friends who live beyond the (fire)walls of Johnson King Towers.

Here’s Mr David Mancuso, Director of External Affairs at AT&T*, on why it’d be really nice if everybody just, like, chilled out a bit, and started actually listening to what the other side is saying…

Nearly a year ago, a friend at JK invited me to participate on their blog.  On most days, I am a decent human being who hates to disappoint friends, so my response was typical: "Of course.  I would love to write something insightful if not bordering on profound for you."

As a professional communicator with more than 20 years experience in marketing and PR for tech companies, and no lack of opinions on everything from world peace to what beer goes best with fish, writing a post should have been the proverbial piece of cake.

It wasn't.

Why? After several attempts to write something it dawned on me that I had nothing new, intelligent, or meaningful to add to the monologue that is the blogosphere.

Yes, despite the promise that the Internet would revolutionise social dialogue, I really think of today's blogosphere as a monologue.  Whether it's media, marketing materials or mom's apple pie recipe, to my eyes, most of what gets posted on the Internet is the view from one side of a topic or issue and not very interesting.

Sure, there are sites that try to present a variety of perspectives or allow for folks to wax poetic with their opinions, but typically, "birds-of-a-feather," mass market behaviour still appears to dominate.  News sites all churn out the same news, and those that try for a new angle are either sensationalist or have little to offer in terms of objectivity or old fashioned, cite-and-verify-your-sources credibility. 

The Internet was supposed to enhance social dialogue, improving it somehow to a new level of civility.  It has certainly turned up the volume on social conversation, but I am not sure it has added much in terms of quality.

Don't get me wrong, I am still a HUGE fan of the Internet and blogs and all they are doing to change our world.  They are making the global community smaller faster than most people or nations are ready to manage and they remain one of the greatest vehicles for free speech man has ever known.  But, just because speech is free doesn't automatically make it useful.

What seems to be missing from the blogosphere are places where one can argue constructively.

It's a win-or-lose world these days and being "right" sadly trumps being smart.  Most opinions expressed on the Web follow the same tired themes and arguments over and over.  Philosophically speaking, today's Web is more of a shouting match than an argument.

A good argument brings people together rather than forces them apart.  But from what I can see, there is hardly a valuable argument that will lead to new ground and mutual understanding anywhere out there on the public Internet.  That's a shame.

Perhaps mankind has forgotten how to argue - constructively - the way Aristotle and his crew did.  Perhaps (at least in the States) we think that argument is pretentious and raw vitriol more honest.  Or, perhaps as 'modern' online citizens, we've simply never been taught how to argue properly in the first place. 

A good argument, well thought through and well made, is as elegant as any athlete in action or work of art on a wall.  Perhaps we professional communicators should take some time to hone our logic and argument skills and teach others - including our colleagues and clients - how to do it too.  Today's world already shows us that fighting is fun (how else can you explain the popularity of Fox News). Maybe doing it constructively on the Internet might be more entertaining than we think…

* Disclaimer: this is a personal viewpoint from Dave and doesn't represent the views of AT&T