What Google+ and +1 mean for content access

by Mi Liberty Directors 6. October 2011 14:34
By Dee Gibbs, Managing Director, Mi liberty 

It is amazing how companies like Google are able to generate such a feverish buzz when launching a new product. Granted, Google’s innovation is sometimes too unconventional to actually be adopted by the public at large. But Google is a bold and forward thinking company, and its willingness to take risks have often been rewarded with tremendous success.

At the time of writing, the web is in the midst of a Google+ fever. Commentators are busily speculating on how Google+ will compete with the might of Facebook. The consensus is that Google+ is an exceptionally polished product and a credible social media platform. But making predictions on its success is a risky business as it is easier to build an innovative and graphically pleasing website, than to actually get people to use it. 

What is most fascinating is how Google+ differs from its larger scale rival. Bloggers are currently raving over Google+’s Circles feature. But really, Circles is not very different from Facebook’s groups and lists. If one wants to publish news and content to just a selection of contacts, it can be done just as easily on Facebook.

Google gives very clear cues of what it sees as most important in ‘social’ by the way it launched Google+. First came the Google+1 button, which was a direct answer to Facebook’s “Like” button. However, Google’s position in search made +1 ubiquitous from the start. 
  
+1 may seem too minimal to really do anything for Google. However, it is simple, non-obtrusive and if people continue to use it, it could be catapulted to supremacy by Google’s second to none online reach. Most importantly, Google was able to pinpoint what is possibly the element that matters most in content search today — to make it stand out from the Google+ platform. 

Receiving content suggestions from peers is compelling in itself. It provides direct insights on the content quality based on the interests, or sense of humour, of the referring person. But a global content ranking based on a centralised algorithm takes this idea much further. Users browse webpages and push content up a notch when they like it. This way, thousands of opinions are compiled into lists of the best content at any given time. It is a continuous popular vote that builds a ranking of everything worthwhile on the Internet.

User-based content ranking (or social recommendation) has been around for some time. As any regular user of online communities such as Delicious, Digg, or Reddit will attest, these platforms are a fantastic tool in their hourly, or daily, search for interesting stuff online.  Yet each of these sites functions as its own bubble; populated by super users who highlight that theirs is the best and thus keeps their communities somewhat ring-fenced from the rest of the online world. Google+1 may just have broken those boundaries. 

So what does it all mean for online stakeholders? It means that the web is currently organising itself based on user responses. There will be many more opportunities to stand out through compelling content, and services, than ever before. The emphasis on quality and originality is becoming more important than sheer communication resources. Today, any content that is clever and pleasing will be “Liked” and “+1ed” to the top and noticed first.

Now that social recommendation is gaining mainstream prominence, we can expect the focus on quality to become greater than ever. Facebook and Google+ will engage in a showdown to make the most of their users’ upvotes with innovative algorithms or user interaction data. This will further impact the most successful formats in content creation and online media. Ultimately, poor content will be drowned and forgotten, the web will grow richer as users get more improved ranking lists and there will be more chances for the intelligent and the creative to rise to the top.

Content has always been king. But today content is the king by popular vote.
 

Currently rated 1.5 by 2 people

  • Currently 1.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: , , ,

The Power of One

by Mi Liberty Directors 14. June 2011 15:24

Google’s +1 is late coming, but it will reinforce a major shift in content access: user generated recommendation

The launch of Google’s +1 button is a smart move from the search giant. It is simple, non-obtrusive and it could be catapulted to hegemony by Google’s second to none online reach. Google has been scratching its head for quite some time now, trying to gain a foothold in the social media space. Yet it has not been able to dent the established social fortresses of the Twitters and the Facebooks of this world.

Introduced at the end of March, +1 may seem too minimal to really do anything for the search giant. But au contraire: the Google teams were able to pinpoint the single element that matters the most for them and perhaps what matters most in social networking overall.

Receiving suggestions of content by peers is compelling in itself: the knowledge of the interests or sense of humour of a known person provide a near guarantee of the content quality (or lack thereof as the case may be). But global content rankings based on a centralised algorithm is nothing short of mind-blowing: through the entire Internet, users browse webpages, and prop content up a notch when they like it. The tally of hundreds of such opinions and creation of ranking lists is an incredibly effective way to bring the best of the Internet to the top at any given time. Some could call it a live vote on what’s worth what at a given time, but if the prophetic social consciousness exists, then those top lists are the best ways to access it.

User-based content rankings (or social recommendations) has been an important online tool for years. Any regular users of online communities such as Delicious, Digg, or Reddit will tell you endless stories about the joy and the richness provided by these platforms and how it has a central role in their search or daily (hourly?) online scoop for interesting stuff.  Yet each is its own bubble, populated by super users who will swear that theirs is the best and thus keep their communities somewhat fenced in from the rest of the online world.

Google’s position as the default search engine is likely to help greatly with the establishment of +1 as a broadly used tool. But the success of this initiative is only of marginal importance. What really matters here is that, when Google’s best minds try to boil things down to the most important element in social networking they come up with +1. They have recognised that the web is currently organising itself in a enormous ranking by quality, based on people’s tastes – and that not being a key part of this process could mean being pushed out of the game altogether.

So what does this all mean for us PRs, journalists and bloggers? Trying to create or pass on the best stuff there is is hardly new. Content creators have been hard at work for years trying to find innovative formats to obtain more views and ultimately channel traffic to their sites. The search for content quality and “hooks” have been the driving force behind list posts, “how to” posts, the focus on incredibly appealing titles, without forgetting the crowd pleasers such as FAILs, You’re doing it wrong, etc.

But now that social recommendation is gaining mainstream prominence, we can expect the focus on quality to become greater than ever. New projects will emerge that bring up most liked content based on innovative algorithms or user interaction data. This will further impact the most successful formats in content creation and online media. Ultimately, there will be even less space for poor or misleading posts. The web will grow richer as users get better and better top rankings. There will be more entertainment, more insightful well-written posts – and more chances for the clever and the creative to rise to the top.

Content has always been king, but today it is king by popular vote.

Currently rated 4.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 4/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

The social media news release is the new black

by Mi Liberty Directors 2. June 2011 16:38

We think a lot about creativity at Mi liberty.  We take it seriously as uninventive PR is BAD PR as far as we’re concerned!  So, reading this from Steve Farnsworth, a digital marketing guru I follow on Twitter was music to my ears. 

Clearly then, we’re not alone and more proof positive that thinking differently about how we PR news to the audiences we need to influence is vital.  So, why aren’t more PR firms or companies taking advantage of the SMNR (Social Media News Release).  It’s been around long enough and is proven so what’s stopping its adoption?  

I spoke at a Thought Leadership workshop in Helsinki this week about just this and I’m pleased to say that getting on my soapbox seemed to resonate.  Surely, packaging up a news story with content and assets that assists the media and makes it easier to write up a compelling news story is worthwhile?  Perhaps we need to do a better job ourselves of pushing this service – clients can only see how effective this style of news collateral is and the digital nature of it will show its benefits of reach.

Anyway, stepping off my soapbox, I’ll be posting next about the customer experience and what we, as an industry, can be doing about that.  Stay tuned!

Dee Gibbs

 

Currently rated 4.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 4/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Thinking creatively about budgets

by Mi Liberty Directors 5. May 2011 16:21
Creatively led campaigns carrying strategic messages are not a thing of the past.  In fact, it’s time for the agency industry to stop and think about how PR and marketing campaigns (but particularly PR) are created and implemented.  Business to business campaigns should no longer be the poor sister to consumer programmes, which can often be sexier and bolder in their delivery of messages.

Companies need help with their messaging and many of them want to work with creative led agencies who can bring something new or different.  I’ve heard a lot about agencies who aren’t really pushing any boundaries or introducing anything new and exciting to client campaigns.  Too often in the PR world we think about the budget a client can pay and agencies even prefer not to push too much to secure additional budget.  That’s fine as existing clients and their budgets are important to retain and many marketing departments cannot find additional budget.  However, with every good idea, budget can be found.  If one particular idea helps to secure more business for that client, they will listen and spend more.  But there’s another challenge and one which the agency should be quick to consider – how, with the same budget, can it be more effective?

Current PR tactics can be boring because they are tried and tested and have worked in the past.  I’m not talking about ignoring our traditional tools and heading towards an all social media landscape, this is more about using different tactics to deliver strong, hard-hitting messages to an audience that is well understood and well researched.  One of the advantages that advertising has over PR is that it has statistics available to back up the sale.  A media pack will have demographic information, readership, geographic information, circulation and sometimes even a test group or focus group to align the purchase of a page of advertising to a particular readership of a particular publication.  For online sites, this information is dealt up via SEO and the profile of the average reader, click throughs, eyeballs, frequency, number of page views etc is all available to assist with targeting.

Clients want agencies who can challenge their thinking, not just do what they ask.  Fresh thinking is long overdue and even agencies who do it well should continue to push boundaries.  Clients get excited when they see ideas visualized in front of them, conveying ways in which they could promote a message in a more compelling way.  This has been true throughout time and is still true today.  Creativity in PR is something that is banded about a lot but very few agencies really deliver exciting and thought-provoking campaigns.  It’s time to rethink the thinking here, and we’ll certainly be among those agencies that will strive to do that.

Now where did I lay my copy of Mad Men Series 4?

Currently rated 4.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 4/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

The customer is STILL king

by Mi Liberty Directors 5. May 2011 11:18

Recently we made a further commitment to Mi liberty's ethos around client satisfaction and appointed a dedicated client services director to our management team. This role is an extension of everything the agency has been built on from day one. Mi liberty celebrated its 13th birthday this week and my experiences over the past years has just served to strengthen my view that happy clients are intrinsically linked to a solid business ethic and a fundamental for growth and reputation.

Still, it never ceases to amaze when new clients come to Mi liberty having already been "burned" by poor service or bad PR from the agency world. It's like the PR industry never learns that to be perceived as a valued partner, it has to deliver on its promises. Of course, it's the same in every walk of life, so why would PR agencies feel that they can get away with shoddy support and poor advice?

I'm proud that we can boast some very long term clients and that has to be a testament to our way of working. Prior to founding the agency, I worked on the client side at some major global brands in the technology world. My in-house communication roles enabled me to experience, first hand, some of the worst, and thankfully, some of the best of agency support. Unfortunately, throughout a 15 year career I never found the agency with the right mix. The upshot was that I was determined to build an agency that was better in every way. Let's face it, any agency is only going to be as good as its fundamental founding principles and the calibre of professionals who deliver that ethos.

At the end of the day, Mi liberty is a reflecton of my standards as a person. So why wouldn't I want it to be the best at client satisfaction? One part of me hopes that agencies that don't stack up read this and buck their ideas up, but the other half thinks that whilst they continue to take their clients for granted and under-perform, there will always be an agency that does it right.

What do you think about PR agency support in the technology industry? You can email me, or follow me on twitter where I intend to become quite vocal on the matter.

Currently rated 4.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 4/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

A Royal Brand

by Mi Liberty Directors 5. May 2011 10:54

THE brand of 2011 has to be “Wills & Kate“ but if you are planning on scooping up all manner of branded merchandise, don’t be fooled into thinking it will make you a fortune.  As Chinese factory workers recover from the long nights of royal memorabilia production, post Royal Wedding most of it will be rendered worthless.

Take a quick trawl on eBay and you can quickly see that a Charles and Diana celebratory mug from 1981 is listed at the paltry value of 99 pence.  To add insult, there are no bids listed either!

For the discerning royal merchandise collector, they’ll tell you that going back a bit further in time to 1947 for instance, commemorative tableware for the Queen and Prince Phillips’ wedding have more value mainly due to the fact that production levels were low and local factories (eg Stoke) was where all the hard work was done so it had the additional interest of home-grown production.

That said, a royal wedding really does establish a brand as well as a feeling of national unity.  You can often see examples of the famous Charles and Diana brand in TV programmes and film sets from the early 80’s making the pieces relevant of a date and time.  William and Kate have actually managed to make royal branded merchandise cool again so it might be a good idea to hang on to those Wills & Kate cushions, mugs, napkins, flags and hats.  You never know how much they might be worth to the producers of period drama’s in 30 years’ time!

To celebrate - we’re giving away a bottle of champagne to the sender of the worst piece of wedding memorabilia photography – send yours to ssharp@miliberty.com

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

3 cheers for women in tech

by Mi Liberty Directors 30. March 2011 09:36

Now I am not a staunch feminist but I do have to applaud Michelle McDowell, BDP's chair of civil and structural engineering and winner of this year’s Veuve Clicquot Business Woman of the Year award.
 
As a civil engineer she has promoted the role of women in science and technology and has helped encourage more young women to consider engineering as a career. As she points out, women rarely receive the right career advice about science and technology and I am sure I am not being biased in saying the tech world is poorer as a result :)

I didn’t intend to work in technology (and I am far from being a tech head!) but I love the challenge and diversity the world of science and engineering brings me. Every day brings something new and exciting. Science and technology is at the cutting edge of innovation – it provides us with the opportunity to see into the future and predict trends which further down the line become mainstream. Contrary to popular belief we are also a very creative bunch. As a technology PR agency we work hard to create creative campaigns for our clients – and we have fun doing it.
 
Gone are the days of science and technology being personified by men in lab coats with wispy hair pouring over a Bunsen burner! We are now the generation of iPads, Facebook and even 3D fashion shows!
 
Now who fancies a glass of Veuve to celebrate?

Currently rated 3.0 by 2 people

  • Currently 3/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Life in PR

by Mi Liberty Directors 21. March 2011 16:34

To celebrate Mi liberty’s 13th birthday as a PR agency, we’re featuring two examples from either end of the PR spectrum. One, a fresh-faced PR graduate with one year’s experience in the workforce. The other, an aging former journalist who came to PR after over 16 years’ experience in other industries.

The PR graduate

Until I decided to study public relations at university I didn’t know what it was. I was keen to study a subject at university that I could use in an industry. Although looking back there will always be a part of me that regrets not following my heart and studying dance. Nevertheless, even when I was young and supposed to be carefree I was not, so I chose a degree that not only had relevance to the working world it also had a sandwich year. This meant that I would work for a year to get experience. To try and combat the age old dilemma of graduates not having enough experience to get a job but no one willing to give them a chance to gain experience.

I went Bournemouth University to study public relations. I spent three years in total at Bournemouth and spent one year in the middle of that working full time in two separate agencies. I have to admit, my year out in the world of work was not an enjoyable one. Although I gained some invaluable experience it left me wondering if PR was the job for me. My two agencies were consumer focused and it ended up feeling more like I was a salesman or cold caller rather than a PR professional. This left me slightly disheartened and I spent my final year at Bournemouth considering that I maybe had made the wrong choice. Nevertheless, pragmatic as ever, I got my BA Hons in Public Relations realising that if PR didn’t work out, I could take my very transferable skills into a new sector.

While having a PR degree offers graduates with a wide range of transferable skills, it also has the advantage of being extremely vocation, which makes the first tentative steps into the workplace a little more obvious. Like the majority of my fellow graduates, I began my search for a career at an agency upon graduation.

Misfortune struck somewhat to me and my peers, graduating as we did in the middle of a deep recession. The media regularly reported how challenging it now was for fresh graduates to find gainful employment. Additional competition in the PR workforce came in the form of thousands of graduates from non-vocational traditional arts or humanities backgrounds such as English, history or politics. Nevertheless, I felt pleased that my decision to choose a sandwich course would prove fruitful. And so it proved to be, my experience working at agencies helped put me in front of potential employers.

Mi liberty was one of the agencies that requested an interview. My first interview was conducted by four of the senior managers, so felt quite daunting. The interview went well though and I was asked back to meet the wider team. Thankfully, Mi liberty then offered me my first fulltime contract at a PR agency, an offer that I gladly accepted.The irony of me working at a telecoms and technology PR agency was not lost on me. At university I was the butt of many jokes as I managed to go through five phones in my final year of university. This meant that I was never able to trust myself with any phone that was too flash. So when I let my friends know I was going to work in the telecoms industry this added fuel to the fire and no one saw me lasting beyond my probation period!

Nevertheless, not only did I last, I thrived. I have now been at Mi liberty for just over a year and I am thoroughly enjoying the experience. My old fears about PR not being the role for me career-wise have long since vanished. I have learnt so much from the Mi liberty team and its wide range of clients during my first year. I expect this trend to continue as my career progresses. In addition to learning on the job Mi liberty, I have also attended a variety of training sessions.

Mi liberty supports people as they grow. Across all my teams I have been given opportunities to push myself and try to prove myself. There is a great team spirit throughout the company and you really get the feeling that everyone wants to see you succeed.

I think I was worried when I first started telecoms PR especially with it being an industry that I had no idea about. However, Mi liberty has supported me throughout and I am glad that when it came to university choice I followed my head not my heart.

The former journalist

So, Mi liberty is 13. Thirteen is a tricky age; no longer a child, not yet an adult. As Mi liberty enters its 14th year I expect that its future will be no less colourful than my own has been. As a slightly bemused 13 year old making his GCSE choices, I was told to fill out a form by the school careers officer. The form posed a number of questions regarding my perceived abilities and preferences. The data was put into a computer and the computer suggested that I should become a fireman.

The careers officer asked me whether I had considered becoming a fireman, “not really,” I said thinking to myself that footballer or rock star sounded more fun, and less dangerous. “Well,” said the CO, “maybe you should go and work in your dad’s garage?”

I’m sure that my career officer had my best interests at heart, just like she had the best interests at heart of the 400 other kids she had seen over the space of that week. Her advice was rubbish, of course. Still, that’s what you get when you appoint a middle-aged career long English teacher as the school careers officer. It wasn’t her fault, she was massively under-qualified for the role and this was the tail end of the 1980s when the media were telling everyone on a daily basis that there were no jobs anymore and that the country was going to the dogs.

Rather than take up the position of assistant to my dad fixing up cars, I decided that the harsh realities of the workplace could wait a few more years. I got some GCSEs and some A-levels and went to university instead. Then I found myself facing the harsh realities of the workplace in my early 20s still with absolutely no idea what I wanted to do with my life.

Ultimately, formal education saw me graduate with a degree in environmental engineering from Nottingham University. I started applying for jobs, well, any jobs with the word ‘environmental’ in their job description. My first job after college was writing distance learning courses in environmental management subjects at De Montfort University.

I had never considered writing as a viable career option before. I had done engineering principally because it was a ‘proper’ degree, one with maths and science, one that would certainly get me a much better job than the one my pal doing media studies would get anyway.

Only my pal who had done media studies ended up working as a journalist down in London and I had ended up as a technical author in Leicester. Somewhere along the lines something had gone seriously wrong. After about three years of technical authoring, I decided that I actually what I really wanted to do with my life was become a journalist since it sounded much more fun and glamorous than technical author.

Becoming a journalist is a lot easier said than done. My first job in writing had revealed that writing might be something I could do that would keep me from working in my dad’s garage. But it hadn’t really taught me how to be a journalist. Back in those days, the web and email were in their infancy, and no one I knew had a mobile phone. Job searching involved buying Monday’s Guardian and scouring the adverts. I went through a period that lasted about a year applying for about ten jobs per. All of my CVs were accompanied by bespoke letter and posted down in the finest envelopes that WH Smith supplied.

I was singularly unsuccessful in my search for a job in London in journalism. I ended up getting a job in Newmarket for an energy analyst – it was kind of near London and it was kind of like journalism. I got to write monthly reports for a set audience of newsletter subscribers, but mostly the job involved cutting up the Financial Times and sticking the stories in a scrapbook. I did this for a couple of years while I built up more experience writing newsletter reports, then I started buying the Guardian on Mondays again. At this second time of asking I was a bit more successful. Mostly I was ignored and occasionally I was rejected, eventually though I was invited to an interview, albeit for a job for which I hadn’t actually applied.

The editor of a b2b magazine called Banking Technology had been passed my CV by one of the hundreds of people I had applied to for a job and she wanted to see me. I knew nothing about banking and even less about technology. I got the gig. This was my first job in journalism.

As a child, I had The Game of Life, in which the most financially rewarding career was journalist. If you landed that job in The Game of Life you generally ended up winning. It didn’t take me very long as a journalist to realise that, in this instance, life did not reflect the challenges and promises of a boardgame. Journalists are not well-paid.

In the six years following graduation, my annual salary had crept up from a £12k per annum to an uninspiring £14k, while my cost of living had gone in the opposite direction. When I lived in Leicester, my monthly rent at one point was £75, while rent at my first flat share in Hackney was £350. I was significantly worse off financially, but hey, at least I got to live on a street just off Clapton’s Murder Mile.

The financial blisters that I had acquired by walking this rocky road of financial discovery were soothed only by the fact that journalism comes with a number of fringe benefits. First up, it is interesting. You get to find out about all sorts of new stuff, you get to meet all sorts of interesting people and if you’re lucky you get to travel all over the world. Second, it rewards the soul. Not only do you get to find out about new stuff and meet interesting people, you also get to write about it and have an audience. Third, in addition to learning and writing about all the exciting new stuff you cover for the publication, you get PR people being nice to you and telling you that you are important.

The fringe benefits are so good that they encouraged me to stay in journalism for 10 years. My salary did go up but it was still significantly lower than that of my friends working outside the media. I was, however, noticeably happier than almost all of my friends. I loved being a journalist. Being wined and dined, going to parties, I really did fly all over the world and stay in some extremely plush hotels, and every so often I wrote some articles.

Unfortunately, the world wide web had grown up in the time it had taken me to move from Leicester to London. Its arrival represented a genuine paradigm shift. The consumption of news and views changed rapidly, and the number of places where marketing executives could spend their advertising budgets multiplied almost exponentially. Many of the traditional publishing houses were not equipped to change their business models. Job security in journalism became almost as bad as the remuneration.

It is a common complaint among journalists that they do not have the time to cover everything of interest to the level that they would like. The instantaneous nature of news consumption now means spending time on quality stories is no longer always an option. In many instances, journalism has become churnalism. When you spend your time covering the same set of subjects with no real level of depth, a good deal of fringe benefits numbers one and two disappear. It is perhaps no coincidence that the most recent version of The Game of Life does not even include journalism as a possible profession.

Fringe benefit three remains in journalism though. In fact, it is stronger now than ever. Principally, because the number of outlets for marketing messages is shrinking and so it is more challenging than ever to get coverage. Public relations is growing as journalism shrinks. When I moved into PR one old hack I knew joked that pretty soon there would be no one left for PRs to call and pitch.

PR, for me, represents growth. It represents a challenging and fascinating change of direction. It represents a chance to stay in the media industry and have genuine influence.  And, perhaps most importantly, it represents financial stability. Moving into PR as a former journalist, losing fringe benefit number three was a bitter pill to swallow, people don’t call me up very often and offer to take me out to lunch or fly me to the other side of the world, but benefits one and two are very much in place and have been joined by a very obvious direct benefit. The path from journalism to PR is well-trodden, it is not without its rocks and the resultant blisters, but the financial rewards are there for those who persist.

Apologies for upsetting English sensibilities and ending this post discussing the taboo topic of cash, but when you have a mortgage and baby to support, the fringe benefits don’t cut it; while money most certainly talks. If I had continued to follow my heart, I would not have been able to support my family. Frankly, if I’d followed my school computer’s advice and become a fireman I would have been better paid than I was as a journalist. I put out a fair amount of fires now of course, but as one of my amazing friends at the agency points out regularly, we work in PR not ER and what’s more, it is better paid. Like Hayley above, I am glad I followed my head.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Making the internet safe or PR dressed as CSR?

by Mi Liberty Directors 16. July 2010 11:17

At the start of this week, Facebook UK fan-fared what many critics believe to be the long overdue arrival of a downloadable ‘panic button’ targeted at 13-18 year olds. The app, known as the ClickCeop button, is provided by Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre – an organisation that up until this announcement was one of Facebook’s sternest critics.

Teenage Facebook users are being encouraged to download the app and then if they suspect that they are the target of unwanted online attention they can click the ClickCeop button and will be redirected to another online facility that enables the incident to be reported.

The initiative received widespread media attention including interviews with hand-wringing Facebook executives on major broadcast news programmes and largely positive write-ups in the national press. Monday was pretty far from a slow news day too, coming, as it did, hot on the heels of the Raoul Moat saga and the World Cup final.

The ClickCeop button is being supported by the Ceop Facebook page which links subjects that teenagers enjoy alongside links to questions about online safety. It sounds, for all the world, like a well-meaning church group and it is probably about as appealing to the average teen.

The media, with its polarised vision of society, can’t quite position teenagers. They’re either knife wielding hoodie-clad maniacs or the innocent victims of an underground army of sinister perverts. The things is, criticising the ClickCeop announcement, bearing in mind the potential seriousness of the dangers that the ClickCeop button is attempting to address, seems somehow wrong.

Unfortunately, the ClickCeop button will be about as effective in its purpose as Paul Gascoigne’s well meant attempt to talk Raoul Moat into handing himself to the authorities with the offer of lager and fried chicken. Still, Moat seems to have become something of a folk legend and all around local hero – not bad PR considering his actions and deeds.

Facebook, like the ISPs, has distanced itself from attempting to police its service. The popular social media site, like all social media and online sites, faces a number of wide-ranging challenges, not least of which is that there is absolutely no way it can (with its present sign-up procedure) police who uses its services.

There is a notional age limit of 13 for Facebook admission. However, the means of regulating users is left down to the subscribers entering their date of birth. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that kids will lie about their age to become Facebook members. And, it won’t be just kids that lie about their age either. That’s the thing with the people who use the internet inappropriately. They aren’t, generally speaking, upfront with their targets.

The ClickCeop button is more likely to become Facebook’s de facto means of snitchery, finger pointing and witch hunting as kids (and adults) seek to manipulate the service to suit their inappropriate needs. That teachers and youth group workers are better off not being online ‘friends’ with the kids they’re trying to help is a pretty sad indictment of the times we live in.

What’s more, it’s not as though children who thought themselves potential victims didn’t already have a means of reporting possible ill-deeds. That said, if you search for the police on Facebook you’ll be redirected to a page dedicated to the 80s pop group. Which, at the time of writing, has 615,779 more people who ‘like’ it than the Ceop’s page.

Still, here we are four days after the ClickCeop announcement and a quick Google news search reveals that the story was covered by over 700 online news sources. That’s pretty impressive coverage for Facebook considering it didn’t create the app and that an app that doesn’t really stand a chance of succeeding in its mission. It’s also great news for Facebook which the day after the ClickCeop announcement went public with yet another legal dispute over its own IP.

In addition, it is also a fantastic example of social media turning to traditional media in order to promote its wares!

 

Sean Jackson, Account Director

Currently rated 4.3 by 3 people

  • Currently 4.333333/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Re-bottling the privacy genie

by Mi Liberty Directors 4. June 2010 11:49

Since I first added my thoughts to PR Week’s debate about the ideas around online privacy mooted by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg, it’s been something that been on my mind. Mainly, how can we as communications experts balance support for, and exploration of, new social communications tools, and a belief in data security and personal privacy?

This article in the Guardian is the latest in a long line of online comment on this subject. Personally, I’ve found myself agreeing with many of the things said by Jennifer Leggio, Christopher Breen and others.

A big part of human nature is the ability to share and to contribute to common causes. We have also, with the establishment of capitalist democracies, supported the rights of businesses to exploit information in the pursuit of sales and profits. It’s nothing new that companies sell the benefits of their technologies at the same time as downplaying the perceived risks; with the speed at which the online landscape is changing, few people have the time or the inclination to stop and really think about all the implications that putting so much data online for anyone to discover. What we really want to do is be the first in our peer group to sign up to new services, and show off the latest apps; no time to question just what they plan for the information given in return.

The fact that it’s newsworthy means that more people than before are thinking about the privacy consideration. Research shows that many people, especially teens, don’t understand the implications of putting a lot of very personal data online. Personally, I believe that the privacy of data will become a major issue over the next few years, as it cuts across not just existing laws of civil liberty and data protection, but also affects copyright, libel, IP and more. Government policies are not yet defined, leaving it to business leaders like Zuckerberg to take the initiative. Of course, a cynic would argue that he doesn’t speak for the people but for his shareholders.

Although not directly linked, the repercussions from the News of the World phone tapping scandal and Google’s revelation that it accidentally recorded personal data from WiFi networks will do more to shift the privacy needle than hundreds of millions of people sharing intimate information online. It will be interesting to see whether government and business can agree ways to protect privacy whilst preserving the kinds of meta data that services like Facebook, Gowalla and Twitter are defined by. Watch this space.

John Ozimek 

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.4.5.0

Calendar

<<  February 2012  >>
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728291234
567891011

View posts in large calendar