Whatever...

Wi-Fi vs. Man

By Olivia Ronsain

Among all the tech news I’ve read recently, one piece really caught my eye – a preliminary study on the damaging effect of sperm’s prolonged exposure to Wi-Fi via a laptop, published in the journal Fertility and Sterility. 

Working in tech PR, I paid particular attention to the news that this warning message – ‘The use of a Wi-Fi connection can damage your sperm cells’ – could soon appear on the underside of a modem, and it got me thinking.  How exactly will parents tell their teenage sons that surfing the net with their laptop resting on their knees could harm their ability to have children one day?

It’s hard to picture a mother casually telling her son, “Sweetie, I already told you not to put your laptop directly on your knees.  Do you really want to suffer reduced sperm motility and a fragmentation of its DNA?”

This study is just the latest in a long line of research reports that have found a regular place in our news cycles.  For instance, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) previously warned that a 20 minute call on a mobile phone and a whole year in a Wi-Fi hot-spot, exposed users to the same amount of radio waves.  The question is, has anyone paid attention and adapted their mobile habits?  

Carried out by scientists from Argentina and the US, this Wi-Fi fertility study has certainly raised a few eyebrows – especially among the male of the species!  And, given that previous reports suggested infertility worries were a result of the heat generated from laptops, there’s certainly some merit in these findings.

However, with the HPA already closely monitoring the safety of Wi-Fi, wouldn’t it have been better to wait for some stronger confirmation before publishing news like this and proposing health warnings be stamped across pieces of kit? 

Should the effects of Wi-Fi be proved true, then men will surely take note and adapt their posture (or risk the consequences).  I doubt that modem warnings will make much of a difference.

 

For Tim the Bell tolls

by Mike King

As if the recent expose of Bell Pottinger’s underhand lobbying claims wasn’t bad enough for the firm, Matthew Norman in the Independent has now written a scathing personal attack on Lord Bell, Chairman of Chime Communications, Bell Pottinger’s parent company.  In it he pulls no punches, with comments like  ‘Why he eschewed the title Lord Bell-End of Much Tossing Over-The-Heath is beyond me. He was a gigantic tool then, and so he remains...’.

Amazingly, for a man with unrivalled experience in the PR industry, Lord Bell’s reaction to the expose has made the whole situation worse.  When the story first broke I wasn’t particularly surprised at MD Tim Collins claims that Bell Pottinger has direct influence at the heart of the British government.  This is, after all, essentially what the lobbying industry exists to do and this is certainly not the first time lobbying, or even Bell Pottinger, has been in hot water over its activities.

The surprise for me came with Lord Bell’s reaction and his reported claims that Bell Pottinger had been the victim of “an attempt by unethical, underhand deception to manufacture a story where none exists”  and that “there is no public interest in this story.”

Is he serious?  To claim there is no public interest in a story about corruption and underhand influence over senior British government figures is farfetched to say the least.  As for his claim of underhand deception, could that be because the journalists involved posed as potential Bell Pottinger clients and secretly recorded Tim Collins’ claims?  This, coming from a man who’s firm represented Rebekah Brooks, is not without some degree of irony.

Google+ may have lost me £100

By Ginnia Cheng

Here at Johnson King, we take our tech very seriously – so seriously that it looks like I owe my colleague Ben (@BnRbrts) a £100 meal because of a tech-related bet I seem to have already lost.

When Google+ was released back in June, I was certain it was going to be a revolutionary success, while Ben was sure it would never take Facebook’s social media crown. After a lengthy and very heated debate, we decided to settle it – if Facebook remained the dominating force in the social network space, then I’d owe him a £100 dinner. But if Google+ makes a dent on Facebook’s industry domination, then he’d owe the dinner to me (we’d both just been promoted at this point so were feeling particularly rich!). 

The release of Google+ drummed up an unprecedented level of hype in the social media world, and with what critics deemed as ‘killer’ features, such as Circles, Hangouts and Sparks, to me it looked like Google couldn’t go wrong . The other big ‘winning’ factor for me was that Google+ was really just a project, and the company were very keen on getting it right for their users – generally the biggest complaint about Facebook is that, due to its many years of market monopoly, it implements whatever changes it wants regardless of user feedback.

There was only one downside I could see – which Ben insisted would be an impossible barrier to break through, but which I was sure would be fixed with time – and this was the fact that everyone and all their friends were already on Facebook and would be reluctant to join another social network.

Unfortunately, as time went on, Google+ seemed to lose its momentum. As Google+ was invite-only for a longer period of time than expected, the only people that seemed to be joining Google+ were the tech-inclined. The only things people seemed to be posting on Google+ were about Google+ itself. Reports started coming in about how it was a flop, and even a Google engineer called Google+ a ‘complete failure’.  Then came the news that Google was pulling the plug on its other social media ventures, Google Buzz and Google Wave. Many took this as a sign of things to come for Google+. Had I lost my bet?

To me this in no way signifies the end of Google+. Call me a Google fangirl, but I really do think Google will be pulling something out of its sleeve soon to drive momentum behind the service. Just because we’re not hearing about it 24/7 anymore, doesn’t mean it’s not being used – and recently, Britney Spears overtook Google’s CEO as the most-followed on Google+, which must be an indication that its userbase has grown from just the very tech-savvy to a wider audience of social networkers. Google+ adverts have popped up around London and on TV, which I never saw for Buzz or Wave. Usually advert-shy, the only other Google adverts have been for Chrome, and look how well Chrome is doing. Admittedly, Facebook’s never had to physically advertise anywhere – but it does have a seven-year head start and before Google+, was the only service of its kind available.

So for now, I refuse to accept that I’ve lost this bet. To me, it looks like Google’s just getting started with Google+, and at this point I’d say Ben and I are still even. What do you think – is Google+ the Facebook killer?  Let us know here: http://twtpoll.com/tc7enx 

Has Christmas come early for Amazon?

With the festive season fast approaching and 50,000 daily pre-orders of the Kindle Fire, it looks like Christmas has already come early for Amazon.  In light of this, Techspot published this lovely infographic showing us just how big Amazon is:

Generation M – mobile shopaholics

By Nicole Melzer

I confess: I am a shopaholic and find it impossible to resist a bargain!

Helping feed my habit are vouchers.  The latest trick is the mobile coupon, offered via an app, Bluetooth, SMS, MMS or email, and promising 20, 30 or even 50 percent discounts.

These offers now form a part of many retailers’ advertising, payments and loyalty mcommerce initiatives. Mobile coupons are particularly popular among young consumers, as they are more willing to ‘friend’ or ‘follow’ a brand when offered a discount.Gone are the days of reading newspapers and trawling for vouchers to cut out.

Smartphones have changed, and are continuing to change, the world of shopping and mcommerce is certainly on the rise in Europe. The challenge is for retailers to meet the demands of shoppers on the move.

With Christmas coming up, there is of course a good chance that we’ll all be using our smartphones to buy presents.  Indeed, UTalkMarketing surveyed 1,300 UK consumers and found that almost 32 percent of 18 to 34-year-olds plan to shop for Christmas presents via mobile in 2011.

With Juniper Research predicting that the total redemption value of mobile coupons worldwide will exceed $43 billion by 2016, it looks like these vouchers are here to stay. With a shopping problem habit to feed, I’m certainly not complaining!

No space for reporters at Cyberspace conference

By Jonathan Mathias 

This week saw the start of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s two day ‘London conference on Cyberspace’.  The event has a large focus on cybercrime, online safety and security, and aims to ‘launch a focused and inclusive dialogue to help guide the behaviour of all in cyberspace’. 

Yet, on Tuesday morning, some reporters were feeling left out, with tweets [1] [2] [3] [4] on the event stating that media attendance has been heavily restricted.     

Being very interested in security, I try to attend as many of these kinds of events as I can, and have been in sessions before where media have been asked to leave.  I never really understood this as, if you’re promoting the event, why have sessions on the agenda that should be restricted?  If something really needs to be top secret, why not make it so?  What about the risk of someone blagging their way in anyway? 

This goes to show how important it is to fully anticipate the variety of possible responses to events.  There has been a huge amount of media interest in the conference for some time now – and I must say the organisers have done well in using social media and promoting the #LondonCyber hashtag – they just won’t have wanted some of the tweets or articles they’ll have seen in response. 

Did you get the chance to attend the conference?  Tell Jonathan your highlights on Twitter @JonathanMathias. 

The game is up for Grainger

by Dana Hashem

By now, you probably know the name of the main sponsor of Wednesday night’s The Games Media Awards.  However, you’re likely to know it for the wrong reasons, as Grainger Games’ foray into the gaming events scene didn’t have the positive impact the company was hoping for.

The event turned out to be more damaging than beneficial to the reputation of the national games retail chain.  Instead of using its elevated profile at the event to build bridges with key journalists in the gaming media, the team at Grainger Games managed to considerably damage its brand in a matter of hours. 

It has been widely reported that some tasteless marketing efforts by Grainger set the completely wrong tone for the evening, but when this was combined with rowdy behaviour from the company’s representatives, the result was to alienate a room full of journalists and industry leaders.  As a result, the Grainger team paid a high price yesterday in terms of the coverage devoted to the criticism of its bizaare antics at the event. 

In addition to harming Grainger’s reputation, the event has caused problems for the organisers, Intent Media.  Credit to Stuart Disney, Intent’s MD, who did his best to set the record straight wasting no time in delivering a statement, complete with advice on how best to air complaints that will undoubtedly continue to pour in for a good while to come.  While it’s hardly the follow up that anyone expected to this prestigious industry event, an apology is certainly better than radio silence and will go some way toward making amends.

Sadly, the same can’t be said of Grainger.  The following apology was posted to (and then removed from) the company’s Facebook page on Thursday:

We wholeheartedly apologise if we offended anyone at last night's GMAs. It was never our intention to upset anybody.  We sponsored the awards to show our support for everyone involved in games media and we continue to value and appreciate all their hard work and commitment.

In contrast with Disney’s statement, this post understandably did little to quell the backlash against Grainger – in order to limit the damage, the company should have taken control of the situation and delivered a fuller, more sincere apology at the earliest opportunity. 

Unfortunately, its failure to do so might mean its brand will suffer the consequences for a long time to come.

The glamour of IT Trade Shows

By Mike King

I bumped into an ex-colleague at IP Expo as she was trying to maintain order among a long queue of people waiting to have their photograph taken with Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak.   Wozniak gave the keynote speech at the show and was hanging around for general adulation and photo opportunities.

She described meeting Wozniak as her trade show high point in close to 20 years in the IT industry.  Meeting Wozniak was even better, she claimed, than the time she met Trevor Brooking (or Sir Trevor as he became in 2004), at InfoSec I think she said it was. 

I’m not sure that I’d agree with her that Wozniak tops Sir Trevor, but each to his own.

My own greatest trade show moments aren’t really in the same league.  The high point is a toss-up between meeting an aging ex-wrestler and meeting two of the ITV Gladiators team.

Meeting ex-World of Sport wrestler Mick McManus was easily the funniest.  He was at the now defunct Networks show sometime in the late 90s working on the next stand to one of my clients.  He must have been about 70 and the whole thing was pretty bizarre, particularly his dyed black hair.  My client thought it was funny to introduce me to him as ‘his biggest fan’.  All I can say is that Mick takes himself very seriously and didn’t see the joke.  

My other trade show high point was meeting Jet and Wolf from Gladiators (first time round) at TMA in Brighton.  Lycra and telecoms had a natural affinity back then.  Oh the glamour of it all. 

 

 

Cabinet minister rubbish at getting the data security message

By Claire Ayles

Ask any IT security vendor, whatever its specialism, what needs to be done to keep confidential data safe and (apart from touting their own technology, obviously) they are likely to say better user education.

For as long as we’ve been representing security companies (which is a long time) this has been one of the key messages in nearly every PR campaign we’ve run.  From ‘don’t click on links in unsolicited emails’, to ‘make sure you encrypt your laptop in case you leave it on the train’, to ‘it really is a terrible idea to post your full date of birth and mother’s maiden name on Facebook’, advice has always centred around the fact that people are very often the weakest link in the fight against data theft.

Today’s vendors are probably thinking they need to extend this advice, with news that Oliver Letwin MP (the cabinet minister in charge of developing government policies) has been snapped disposing of official documents, not in a shredder, but in the public rubbish bins of Westminster. Hacking groups like Anonymous and LulzSec must be left wondering why they’re bothering with sophisticated hacking techniques when all they really need to do is hang around Parliament Square cunningly disguised as street cleaners.  I mean, even the writers of Spooks would reject this storyline for being too far fetched.

There’s some debate about whether the documents are of a sensitive nature (Letwin claims not, The Mirror claims otherwise, stating that one document even contained details of an enquiry into extraordinary rendition), but regardless, it does make you question whether the £650 million the UK plans to spend on cyber security is going to make any difference. 

 

 

Anonymous vs. NYSE; next up Facebook

By Alexandra Radius

On Monday 10th October we were all waiting with baited breath for the attack, refreshing the page to see what would happen, but in the end The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) website remained intact.  A surprise?  Perhaps, as Anonymous, the notorious hacking group, had announced its intention to attack the NYSE website to show its support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. 

Even though the site seemed, to the naked eye, to be unchanged, experts did observe that the NYSE website slowed down at certain parts of the day.  However, Ray Pellechia, the official spokesperson for NYSE, denied there was any disruption.

So, after all the waiting and monitoring, it appears there was no attack.  However, this doesn’t mean Anonymous failed.  For me, Anonymous’ objective was simply to draw media attention to the Occupy Wall Street movement.  It certainly achieved this, with widespread pick-up and interest in the story, and therefore of the movement. 

It will be interesting to see if anything happens with Anonymous’ next target, Facebook, on 5^th November.  Watch this space.