Whatever...

RIP BB

By Fiona Halkerston

As one of the last remaining fans of Big Brother, I was somewhat saddened, but not at all surprised, that Channel Four has axed the original annual “reality” TV show.   Media coverage of this year’s show has been over shadowed by the news that ratings have fallen and the public has lost interest in housemate antics.  Even the ever-faithful tabloids failed to be attracted to this year’s offering of page three hopefuls and TV presenters-to-be.

 

So, does the death of Big Brother truly indicate the beginning of the end for reality shows or are the Heat readers of this world just after a little more for their money?  Big Brother contestants are rewarded with their 15 minutes of fame for effectively doing nothing for an entire summer, and allowing us to watch them.  But surely they have to work harder than that to maintain public interest?

 

Reality shows that focus on “talent” seem to be systematically gaining momentum.  Last week, the X Factor debut episode pulled in audience figures of almost ten million, which is almost twice as many as Big Brother at its 2002 peak.  Celebrity talent shows also continue to be hugely popular as they offer ailing celebrities the chance to regain the affection of their once adoring public – but they certainly have to toil for it.

 

With this in mind, no matter whether you love it or hate it, Big Brother has changed television forever.   The boundaries of the term “reality” TV have been consistently stretched year on year and to mirror this, TV scheduling now offers an extensive range of society documentaries.  Whether the topic of choice is unhealthy eating habits or unpleasant illnesses, it would seem that the British public is obsessed with the escapism offered by watching someone else’s exaggerated reality. 

 

So, as Channel Four moves on and seeks its next big prime time money maker, I (for one) will still be tuning in to find out what the Big Brother producers pull out of the bag before the format itself is finally evicted. 

That's 'communitainment'

By Ingrid Daschner

The world is awash with the latest buzzword 'communitainment', a term that originated in a report entitled 'The User Revolution' by the analyst firm Piper Jaffray.

 

The exchange of content, ideas and entertainment in a Web 2.0 or social‑networking context, this concept can also be tailored to the corporate world and/or corporate culture without Web 2.0 as identified by Dr Wilhelm Greiner.

 

In Germany, communitainment doesn’t always come that naturally.  Here, the prevalent attitude is that information should be conveyed neutrally, objectively and soberly, however, from my practical experience, employees (especially techies) would much rather have a bit of humour, parody and satire than yet another dry Powerpoint presentation.

 

A very clear example is a white paper produced by Google about its Chrome browser. This was created by the famous comic artist Scott McCloud and takes the form of a 38‑page comic.  This is a prime example of communitainment, and is aimed at users who are interested in technology and are seeking a browser that is technically superior to and cooler than the usual one.  Not only do McCloud's illustrations help depict Chrome’s technical capabilities, but thanks to his unusual presentation, they also support Google’s 'cool’ image, a key differentiator when competing with Microsoft.

Will users be content paying for content?

By Laura Mead

I’ve recently been reading about the newspaper 'pay wall’ debate that seems to have struck a real nerve on both sides of the Atlantic.  Should newspaper publishers charge for online content, and is it a feasible revenue model for them? 

As a PR and avid online reader, it's both a fascinating and scary question.  With print subscriptions dying out and online advertising not generating the revenue the industry was hoping for, it’s obvious that things need to change – of course the question of how remains. 

Rupert Murdoch and the Financial Times seem to be leading the way, with the FT looking to introduce a unique charging model based on frequency for online users by 2010.  I remain unconvinced that this model, or indeed any pay model, will succeed.  What’s worse, I question whether it will have the opposite effect and drive readers away instead. 

Today’s ‘Google generation’ has been brought up online, and most consumers are now used to and have come to expect instant and free access to information – the news is certainly not immune to this.  The rise of social media – from Facebook to Spotify – has fashioned a way to share information and collaborate with other users in an easy, free way that wasn’t possible before.  The web has also spawned limitless opportunity for bloggers to share news, information and their opinions with anyone willing to read it.  This all makes me think the ‘pay wall’ model is not the answer the industry is looking for – won’t readers just look elsewhere for their news?

As media critic Dan Kennedy rightly points out, some of today’s leading online news sources – the BBC, CNN and MSNBC to name a few – offer a free service, which shows no sign of abating given their sole purpose is to promote and drive viewers to their sister TV channels.

With consumers now so spoiled for choice, there will always be alternative routes to get the news for free and so long as there is, I don't think they will pay for this online content - no matter how valuable it is.      

The blogosphere – to regulate or not to regulate?

By Lucy Smart

 

The credibility of bloggers worldwide was brought into question last week when Wall Street Journal blogger and reporter Ben Charny misinformed readers that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would headline the Consumer Electronics Show in 2010.  With scant evidence to back up these claims, and no reliable source, rival bloggers were quick to dismiss the post, while readers were left wondering what to believe.

 

While it’s often an extremely fast paced, insightful form of news, blogging is largely unregulated, leaving many readers to question the reliability of what they are reading.  Indeed, as David Gelles reports in his FT Tech Blog, the lines between advertising, marketing and editorial are less defined in the blogging world and while a few posts are falling under increased scrutiny, the majority of bloggers are failing to disclose their relationships with the companies and individuals they mention.

 

The Federal Trade Commission is currently considering appropriate guidelines that would hold bloggers liable for untruthful statements made on blogs or social media sites.  Other self-regulating sites, such as Womma, have published ethics codes, while the new self-policing group Blog with Integrity is encouraging bloggers to reassure readers by claiming their incorruptibility.  

 

But is it too soon to regulate blogs and other forms of new media? A set of rigid rules from the FTC could be too premature and too severe for an industry that is still developing.  Half the attraction of bloggers is they often offer a fresh view on topics because they are free to express themselves openly.  While it’s obviously wrong to publish outright lies, bloggers may become reluctant to publish their opinions if they fear being sued.

 

There is no doubt that there are regulatory issues that need to be addressed in the blogosphere – but while it is possible that blogs could be regulated by self policing bodies, it is questionable how effective these will be.

Shouldn’t it be called Twanking?

By Mike King

 

I’ve been playing around with Twitter ranking tools, trying to gauge how different Twitter users compare to others.  Needless to say, finding a meaningful measurement tool is not that easy.

 

Some of the most well known ranking tools, like Twitterhollic and TwitterCounter just use the number of followers to rank Twitter users.  While this is obviously one measure, it seems to me to be far too simplistic.  If users in the wonderful world of Twitter are going to be ranked, other factors need to be taken into account such as quality of tweets, activity levels and credibility. 

 

Fortunately, there are other sites that attempt to rank Twitter users with more sophisticated analysis than number of followers alone.  Examples include Twinfluence and, my personal favourite, Twitter Grader.

 

These tools are very easy to use, just stick in any Twitter name and they will check it out and come back with a grade and, most importantly, an overall ranking.   I have no idea how accurate these tools are or, frankly, much about how they work out their scores, but I like the way they attempt to bring some form of measurement to the world of Twitter.  And, of course, with tools like Twitter Grader and Twinfluence, it is fun to be able to see where you come in the rankings.

 

When I checked it out, ‘johnsonkingPR’ was ranked 323,549 out of 2,927,968 on the Twitter Grader with an overall grade of 89 out of 100.  Not bad, puts us close to the top 10% of Twitter users.   By comparison, mega-Tweeter Stephen Fry comes in at 251 with a grade of 99.99 out of 100 and Guy Kawasaki at number 2 with a grade of 100. 

 

Using Twinfluence, we faired even better, with an overall ranking of 76,783 and a score of 47%.

 

All of these ranking tools also have lists of the top Twitter users, the elite users. It all may be fairly meaningless but it is fun seeing where you stand in the rankings and then working to improve your position. 

Is Twitter the new Reuters?

 

 

 

By Alexandra Radius

 

In the beginning, Twitter was a social network which helped you to keep track of what your friends were up to. But its success and global notoriety has come from a different type of use. Twitter is now a media in its own right, having proved to be an efficient and (relatively) reliable source of news and insight about events happening all over the world.

 

One of the most recent examples of this was during the Iran crisis when the traditional media was heavily restricted. Twitter provided the platform for uncensored videos filmed on mobile phones to be broadcast, giving the world a rare glimpse of what many Iranian people thought about the country’s political situation. Another example was during the Bombay terror attacks when people tweeted as a way of contacting their families.

 

For me, the more quickly we are made aware of these type of situations the better, and the fact that the public can now break the news ahead of AFP or Reuters is a logical evolution, given the immediate and ‘always on’ nature of today’s end-user technologies.

 

So does this mean that we are looking at the end of the press agency and journalism as we know it today? Even if technology continues to increase the speed at which the news is spread, we will always need credible people to check and corroborate information, after all, the lines between rumours, speculation and truth can be very thin. Twitter is a great tool and plays a vital informative role, but this role can only be a complementary one.

 

Recently the idea has been put forward that Twitter should win the Nobel Peace Prize for its role during the Iran crisis and why not? The very suggestion will undoubtedly give Twitter and other social networks real recognition as information broadcasters.  But tweeting can never replace hard graft, in-depth journalism, especially now that we can read the news on a smartphone, laptop and maybe very soon, a Kindle.

 

Is Morgan Stanley really down with the kids?

By Tom Kirkham

 

This week everyone’s been talking about Matthew Robson and his revelation that – shock-horror(!) – teenagers don’t use Twitter.  Personally, I think this excellent news, as by and large, teenagers are not very interesting.

It is impressive nevertheless that following just one week’s work experience at Morgan Stanley, the young gent (15) has managed to achieve unprecedented global fame and recognition (check this profile in The Times for one) for his How Teenagers Consume Media report.  I can’t help but feel a bit sorry for our own work experience lad Louis, who also did a first rate job but unfortunately – to the best of my knowledge – his reorganisation of our media database hasn’t yet become the talk of Tokyo, Wall Street and the City.

It does feel as though the significance of Robson’s report is being overstated – there’s no great evidence to suggest that he is the archetypal teenager.  He was given the task because he was in the right place at the right time, he admits that it really only sums up the views of some friends he texted, while his Headteacher describes him as “a very reflective young man” – hardly consistent with the image of the knife-wielding, hoodie-wearing, pensioner-intimidating youth we’ve all come to know and dread.

Okay, so this is facetious, and certainly a number of Robson’s claims do sound like they’re on the mark, but I suspect the real reason for all of the fervour is simply because most of the CEOs and analysts out there have NO IDEA what teenagers are actually like. 

  

The ridiculous pace of technological change is accentuating existing generation gaps as well as creating new demographics – “the mobile phone generation”, “the Facebook generation” etc. – based purely on the technologies that different bands of teenagers grow up with, and crucially, take for granted.  While CEOs may be able to use these same products and services themselves, it’s getting harder and harder to bridge the divide and understand the full extent of technology’s social impact on young people.  Hence Morgan Stanley and the business world jumping on the first glimmer of insight that comes along.

  

It will be interesting to see whether other companies now look to engage more directly with teenagers to track trends and identify emerging youth consumer habits.  Maybe in the future, we’ll even see kids opting to become part-time media consultants instead of taking on paper rounds or working in McDonalds.  One thing’s for sure – if I was Matthew Robson, rather than working on my next report, I’d be living out the fantasies of teenage boys everywhere and using my new found fame to pick up hot girls…

There’s life in the old dog yet

By Jonathan Mathias

 

This day last week, for the first time in as long as I care to remember, I was completely transfixed by the unfolding events of a TV news story – the untimely death of Michael Jackson.  What really struck me, in retrospect, was that I didn’t immediately search Google in order to find out more.  No, at this time, all that would do for me was old media – and I wasn’t the only one.  All my friends and family were glued to BBC News 24, and I’d hazard that an awful lot more people than usual picked up a newspaper last Friday.  

 

The story broke on the relatively small celebrity gossip website TMZ, and it was from there that other news agencies and services got their tip off.  But it seems that people just wouldn’t accept MJ’s death as fact until other, more established outlets, such as the LA Times, BBC and CNN, confirmed the reports. 

 

The below graph, made on alexa.com, shows traffic to various news sites at the time.  You can see that TMZ had a marked peak on the 25^th, when the story broke, while the other more mainstream sites peaked or experienced sustained traffic the following day (including Twitter, as the public conversation continued to flow).

 

 

 

Although this event demonstrates more than ever how online and social media has changed the way news spreads, it’s also clear that the traditional media is a long, long way from being written off.  People continue to revert back to more established news sources to confirm big stories, perhaps you could even argue that stories carried by these outlets are much more trusted, valued and remembered.

NLA to charge for web content – a step too far?

By Flora Haslam

 

The NLA’s plan to extend its licensing remit to cover newspaper websites has, unsurprisingly, been met with widespread condemnation from the PR community. 

 

It’s all very well for the NLA to want to ‘protect the rights of publishers’ – let’s be honest, they could do with all the help they can get in the current climate, but I thought the rationale for the NLA was to compensate publishers for loss of sales?  I really don’t see how charging for clippings of online news stories (which are freely available) can possibly be justified?

 

The debate on monetising internet content could rage forever, but while some – notably the FT – have gone down the subscription route, and other publishers have toyed with pay per page view, the fact remains that the vast majority of UK online news is available free of charge.

 

I still struggle to understand the basic argument that the NLA fee compensates lost revenue.  I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve always found that when a client gets in the Telegraph or the Guardian, they’re usually very keen to go and buy themselves a copy – sometimes more than one!  So you could argue the PR industry is actually responsible for driving newspaper sales (and that’s before we even get started on the arguments that some copy is actually created by PRs and their clients anyway).

 

Extending the charges to cover web content just seems like a step too far.  The NLA’s own research shows that 23% of newspapers’ online content never appears in print which, by my reckoning, means we’ll all be paying twice for 77% of coverage... nice work if you can get it.

Nothing is certain but death and taxes (even on the internet)

By Juliana Wimmer

 

It seems that Benjamin Franklin’s old saying hasn’t lost any relevance in the internet age, but just who could have predicted the potential of the online market for undertaker services? 

 

Since May 2001, Austrian website begraebnis.at has been offering live webcasts of funerals. The advantages of this cannot be dismissed! Relatives and guests can save on travel costs and don’t even have to take a day off work in order to pay their respects.  Maybe the preacher could even embellish his sermon with PowerPoint slides? 

   

But the industry hasn’t stopped there: death notices and obituaries can now be published on the web and there are virtual cemeteries that list the names of the deceased.  B2B sites offer wholesale coffins, urns and tombstones, ‘tactfully’ helping undertakers set themselves apart from the competition and gain new customers. Competition between online funeral firms is so rife, we’re even seeing a price war.

 

Other IT industries could surely get a piece of the action. After all, cemeteries have been ‘IT free’ for long enough and you must concede that DSL connections at most graveyards leave a lot to be desired.  So how about integrating a CAD tool (Grave3D?), so that tombstones and flower decorations can be planned and ordered online as well?  Or a webcam allowing the bereaved to watch their flowers fade or ensure robbers don’t steal the headstone?  With barcode technology, RFID and GPS, a modern funeral parlour could even go in for some “Corpse Tracking”.

 

This blog was inspired by a series called “Dr. T.’s consultancy”, so many thanks to Dr. Thomas Hafen of Channelpartner.