RSS

Tag Archives: social

WTF is wrong with agencies?

[This post was first published on Imperica here]

So, you walk into a room full of the brightest and best that agencyland has to offer, a collection of the digitally-enthused and passionately adept, charged out by their agencies for hundreds, even thousands of pounds a day, all in a room to share knowledge and swap best practices.

And then you realise that there’s a surprising common factor – a lot of them appear to be dumb.

The clue comes from the presentations; one is essentially a series of links, as if a bunch of digital heads don’t have any other way of sharing such things, as if Twitter, Stumbleupon, Reddit and, y’know, email groups never existed. Another presentation lays out the revelation that stories have – I kid you not – a beginning, middle and end. This revelation causes much scribbling of notes, swiping of iPads and, yes, even tweeting. I look around me and think: is this it? A stone’s throw from “Silicon Roundabout”, the much-vaunted (by politicians, anyway) digital tech hub of London, where all the cool smartarses should be and it’s just… not San Francisco.

This is only one of a number of occasions recently when I’ve looked at agency staff doing, y’know, stuff and thought “Why do you exist?”

Account team to the rescue

Why do clients hire agencies anyway? Why, if you run a business and employ staff, do you need to bring in an external company to do bits of your business? The answer is that agencies are supposed to be better at certain things than you are. You hire in specialists to do work that can’t be completed internally to the same standards. Simple, right?

At least, that’s how it should be. Digital has been like this for a while – once the preserve of unemployable nerds, later the territory of the whizzkids and geniuses, but always an area where clients were lacking in knowledge and / or experience. Why? Well, often, it was an age thing. Marketing directors and other senior stakeholders were of an age where they hadn’t grown up with the internet and weren’t enthused about it. 10 years ago, people were still debating whether or not they should even have a webpage (mind you, a couple of weeks ago, a large client of mine was still debating whether or not to have a Facebook page. Sometimes things don’t change). Agencies who needed to sell these services found the employable geeks and snapped them up on far better wages than yet-to-be-convinced-of-the-value-of-digital clients. They gave the unknowledgeable the option to buy a service with a set of deliverables attached; if you don’t understand what the work is really about, having a checklist of documents to be produced and webpages to be constructed allowed you to tick things off one by one, and assume you’d done your job.

And then people started to make money out of the web, and things changed again.

Suddenly, this stuff was deemed measurable in metrics normal non-digital people could understand. Did we make a return on our investment? Are we selling things through our website? The demands on agencies changed – and agencies changed to meet those demands. Instead of “digital strategy” meaning “what colour should our website be?” it became “does our web stuff help meet our business objectives?” and so new kinds of planners and strategists were needed, ones that understood the workings of businesses more than just the workings of marketing.

At this point, the advertising agencies who had successfully sold in the notion that the web was just another billboard, somewhere to extend the “above the line” creative, a place to put pretty pictures from the real world in front of consumers (just in smaller boxes)… they began to look, well, a bit shit.

Digital engagement is not like advertising – there is very little value in engagement alone. Whilst you may get a bit of all the above-mentioned metrics, if you don’t give an end user something to do you’re missing an opportunity – that might be the opportunity to engage in conversation (two way communication breeds better engagement than just getting people to watch a film or an animation or read some text), or it might be to drive people to a web or social media page with a stronger call to action, to sign up, to contribute, to purchase. But it’s not just that it’s an “opportunity” – it’s that these are things people want to do online. Passive viewing and sucking up marketing doesn’t cut it. And this kind of activity is more measurable than “how many eyes walked past our poster.” Analytics will tell you exactly what response something got.

And then there’s the user. Digital requires more understanding of individual users’ needs because people do more things in digital than, say, when they’re walking past a poster or watching the telly. They search, they research, they talk with friends about things they like, they shout at brands they hate, they create and distribute, influence and are influenced. And they often do it by themselves in a room with a screen. Advertising & PR have to talk “one to many” – so advertising a product on TV to millions in the hope you hit 2 or 3 target markets means finding messaging that works across all targets; digital has an element of the same but often requires a more individual approach, understanding that it’s just you and the user communicating, albeit in a context of more people / friends / followers etc.

"Yeah, sorry, gotta dash, got a client meeting in 20 minutes, gonna sell them some elephants."

This puts the ball in the court of the strategists. Where great advertising planners of the past were often a mixture of creative instinct, sharp minds and bucketloads of experience, digital planners and strategists need a mix of those things plus one all important element: evidence. That means that you can prove what you say; charm and a few lunches might sell something in to the client, but it won’t sell it into the punter. Smart agencies now buy into psychology, anthropology, data and research. And strategists & planners need to be able to help turn all of that into yer actual real stuff on the other end.

For a while, digital people looked pretty smart, then. The explosion of social media brought a new generation of socially-minded people who got lumped together under the “digital” banner and then… Well, I’m not sure the two are wholly related but there seems some correlation, if not causation. Social media seems much more sexy than “trad” digital because, hey! Everyone’s got a Facebook page and – bejasus! Some people have even tried that Twittering thing and it looks fun and so can’t we have one of those? Can we make it sell our widgets? … and so forth.

The less you know about a subject, the harder it is to be strategic. One of the stupidest mistakes of people in positions of “authoritah” is to assume that any job they’ve never done themselves is actually easy. Now they had a Facebook page, they were social media experts, right? Which is a bit like saying you read a paper every day so you know how to be a journalist. Marketing directors would start looking at social as a way of delivering campaign tactics – short term, marketing objective-driven executions; and the new generation of social media agencies have got fat off the proceeds. It was the Wild West all over again, and without much in the way of competition the fees were high and the audience easier to reach. There’s gold in them thar hills, and all that.

Now, things are different: everyone’s doing it. It’s harder to win. Real social engagement means a sustained presence; listening and responding goes further than just communicating – consumers expect companies to change when they demand it, and in the age of social CRM, they do. Marks & Spencer are brilliant at this and they run most of their social engagement from a small in-house team who know what they are doing. Who the hell needs an agency, when you’re the most-engaged UK brand on Facebook and you’re driving sales?

Proper strategy means knowing what businesses need as well as consumers – and over time, not just in the short term. Relationships mature, they aren’t always created in an instant. Knowing the whizziest of whizzy gadgets and gimmicks is not the whole game any more – but it is a part of it. If you stop learning every day, technology-based disciplines will always pass you by. This is the technological imperative at work – just because you know something about Twitter today does not mean you can answer business challenges tomorrow.

All this “smart, experienced people” schtick flew in the face of standard agency hiring practices. Agencies weren’t where a lot of smart people went, not outside of planning departments anyway. If you had a modicum of charm were good looking and had a nice haircut, wore the right clothes and kissed the right sphincter, you could get a pretty decent job. Smart people went into planning and strategy and were locked away in dark rooms. At this point, I expect a lot of agency types to be fuming, but, frankly, if they read this far they aren’t the targets (reading seems to be anathema to a certain type of agency person, long copy a distant dream). Anyway, the needs of the digital market brought in smarter people. Agencies who had never considered such things as, y’know, how a business actually works, started to employ business analysts and consultants, whole departments sprang up that dealt with data and research. Anthropology, sociology and psychology became important.

So, what’s with all the agency dumb?

My theory: money breeds complacency. And complacency breeds poor hiring practices. The lack of competitive pressure which has allowed a whole slew of agencies to gain cashflow on the back of average work. So they keep hiring the same people they always have. They forget – or don’t know how – to look into social and digital expertise. In the ’90s you used to have to check that someone had “Microsoft Office” in their skillset; now kids learn that stuff in school. Just because someone has a Pinterest account it doesn’t follow that they know how to use it for business (and for an explanation of why social media consulting is almost dead for the same reason, see here). And if you don’t use it yourself, you sure as hell can’t check whether someone else is any good at it.

I keep wondering what it would be like if you got into a car for your first driving lesson and the instructor had a book open on his lap. “I don’t drive myself,” he says, “but I have an excellent book here written by some of the best drivers in the world. Now…. If you can…” [reads from book] “depress the clutch with your left foot…”

You would be out of that car in a second.

"Where to guvnor? Can you just put me 'and on the satnav? Cheers."

So why do agencies think it’s alright to charge people for the services of people who are reading from the approved text?

The trouble is, they all follow a similar trajectory. That complacency allows their competitors to nip in and point out that they could deliver the same work (a) considerably better and (b) considerably cheaper. Non-experienced people take longer to do the same work and they’re learning as they go – inevitably costs go up as quality suffers.

Agencies that want to prosper with digital and social offerings need to get their heads out of their collective backsides. Compete with Silicon Valley?

You. Are. Fucking. Joking.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Nonsense of The Personal Brand

I get a lot of gip about my Twitter account. I swear, make bad and often off-colour jokes, troll major brands and social media consultants for kicks and generally refuse to play the “game.” Considering a history of working in marketing and dealing with brand and PR, am I just killing my personal brand?

AKA "I am a massive bell-end."

I certainly hope so.

Consider what personal branding is all about – the idea that you need to maintain a professional demeanour in the face of present or potential clients or networking colleagues. Sadly, there are plenty of examples of employees losing jobs over their social network postings and employers who “vet” potential employees using companies that perform online vetting.

The idea that your personal life now belongs to your employer is unbelievably offensive in what is supposed to be a “free” country. Sure, if you attend a Klan rally wearing your McDonalds uniform people are bound to get upset – you can’t blame the Klan for excluding you.* If you’re wearing a uniform then it’s not such a stretch to think that you represent your employer somehow, but if you’re in civvies on your own time? Would you expect your employer to see you dancing badly on a Saturday night and give you a written warning about your conduct? What if you worked for Amnesty but liked to secretly read the Mail On Sunday? Or you worked at T-Mobile but had a BT landline? What business is it of anyone’s?

The answer to all of this is pretty simple. If you’re worried your employer may be social network-sensitive, don’t allow them to connect to you and sort out your privacy settings. For some people, this is sadly a reality – but they are a slightly different issue to those with “personal brands.”

The person as a brand is not a new concept. And, if you’re famous like Donald Trump then I suppose I can see the sense in it – your income is related directly to people’s perception of you. So, even if it makes you a total douche, fair enough. But that isn’t most people. Most people who go down this route are creating a

"Hi. I'm a self-perpetuating media node."

professional façade for their personality – this is what your CV or LinkedIn are for, a professional interpretation of who you are. But your presence in social networks is social by definition – why are you pretending to be someone you aren’t?

The process of branding is often about making products seem more human or human-friendly – so why is that process being applied to, erm, humans? Would you ever want to meet a personal brand? How does that go? “Hi, I’m Tom. Have you read this week’s iPhone news? If you’ve enjoyed this conversation you can find me at the bar across the street later where I’ll be discussing the Wall Street protests…”

“Uh-huh….  Check please.”

I don’t subscribe to this kind of stuff because I’d rather people knew what a jerk I am before they employ me. What’s the point of pretending to be someone I’m not? They’ll find out eventually. I wouldn’t lie on my CV and say I can operate a crane, only later to destroy a building with one and sheepishly ask if I’ll be getting paid for the hours I’d done before those unfortunate deaths. The same goes for clients. If clients are sensitive, ensure they are not connected. It’s the work account that needs to be careful not the personal ones. If you’re a massively offensive and profane person, your company is unlikely to place you in a room with sensitive clients so why would you connect  with them on social networks?

Most client organisations are made up of human beings just like you. And they don’t care about what you do in your personal life. They are more likely to be offended if you pretend to be someone you aren’t and then they discover the real you. If you spend your whole life with a permagrin, soray tan, fake Rolex or Gucci handbag slapped on your person, good luck to you. But you can buy your own drinks.

Branding? It’s for companies and cattle. You aren’t a brand, you’re a person. Maybe try actually being one.

It's the mark that says "Hi, I'm Chad, let's talk about articles I read on Mashable."

*Zzzzzzing.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on October 16, 2011 in Branding, Marketing, Social Media

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Social Media Consultants: A Cautionary Tale From History

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin… Once upon a time a man called Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. It was 1876 and blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda. That’s not the interesting bit. What’s interesting is that Bell himself, despite predicting the immense social consequences, never owned one at home.

The reason was generational: having grown up with nothing more than telegraphs and morse code to communicate further afield than the next town, the need for these new forms of communications had not really touched his own life. He just didn’t feel the need.

In 1878, the first switchboard opened in Connecticut. It was staffed – as were many of the first exchanges by young men (average age 17, apparently). This was because they had the stereotypically “male” trait of being able to look at these complex devices and be able to work them without lengthy training. By 1880, there was one phone for every thousand American households. By the mid-1890s, that number had dropped to one in 70.

Most interesting to me was that, at this point in history, these expensive machines were not for fun – they were treated like a telegraph machine with a little more functionality. You didn’t chit chat, you didn’t top and tail your conversation with pleasantries, you just verbally expressed what you would have sent by telegraph. People would pick up the phone and say “Need 17 cases STOP Delivery by Wednesday STOP Price as previous order STOP.” And put the phone down.

By the 1920s, the machines were more ubiquitous and the companies that sold them were trying to get people to use them as more social devices. AT&T’s legendary “Reach Out & Touch Someone” came from a realisation that the families and friendships that had been scattered by America’s still-recent migration could be reconnected using the phone. This marked a change in direction, although it was one that businesses had already realised, as they networked a series of offices across the country and even the world. Using the phones was big business, but people just hadn’t grown up with them so they needed help.

An industry grew to help these businesses. This is a film from 1927 (it has no sound, sound hadn’t been invented then and I believe people mostly mimed to each other in the street [CITATION NEEDED]).

Around this time, the switchboards were getting rid of those young boys who had ruled that particular roost. With competition raging between Bell Telephone, AT&T and Western Union (the latter merging under the same president, Theodore Vail, who was related to the one of the people who developed the first telegraph and was such a stickler for centralised power that Vailism became a byword for monopoly practices) there was a move towards service as a feature rather than mere functionality. Owners found that the boys were often rude, made short answers and were unhelpful – another stereotypically male trait, unfortunately. This is why, by the time cameras got around to capturing them, most of these switchboards were operated by women – they were simply more pleasant to talk to than their spotty teenaged male counterparts.

If you look closely there's a smug guy saying "Plug it in there and say "Hello, sir.""

There must also have been a change in the employees that were taken on. By the mid-20s, many would have had experience in using a telephone at home and would have been more comfortable with the conventions surrounding its use. And training would have become less of a specialty – these operations would have become focused over time less on how to talk on the telephone and more about how to monetise operations off the back of them. Think of terms used in callcentres today and it’s all cross-sell and up-sell. You would imagine that the training around saying “Hello, welcome to Acme, my name is Allan, how may I help you today?” would be a short side note. The real meat of training is how to sell, how to serve, how to make sure the customer leaves happy and with a lighter wallet.

And so it is – and will be – with social media. It seems odd to me that this is even something worth mentioning in 2012, but I was reminded of the need by an idiotic spat with a “social media consultant” over their use of hashtags to hijack news items and conversations. I’ll save the details for now, but it occurred to me that these snake-oil salesmen are still out there relieving businesses of budgets for nothing more than, effectively, learning how to speak to people in these channels.

This was social media strategy for most of us in about 2005. Since then, it’s become more about how to integrate this new channel into business operations. With the advent of “social CRM” (yes, I know, but it doesn’t have to be complicated, it can really be distilled into listening to what your customer wants and then working out how your company can service their demands and needs), there is an even greater push to get brands and organisations engaging, listening and responding operationally.

But this is not where the social media consultant lives. They still think that their ability to chat on the phone sets them apart as specially talented, that brands haven’t yet caught on, that the need to impart wisdom gleaned from sometimes as much as two years’ experience as a self-appointed consultant qualifies them as a business requirement. But every year that passes, another generation of young employees comes to a company and for them social media is not something special – it just “is.” They’ve grown up with these things, it’s natural to them, they don’t need training in how to use it; they need training in how businesses work so they can work out how social media becomes as much a part of everyday company life as it is for the next generation of consumers coming through. Communication skills are easy to teach; how to run a business is not.

Snake Oil - check out that ROI!

The social media consultant should be dead by now, but they aren’t. They use each other to bolster their follower accounts, content farming like crazy to set out nets to catch each other with, giving the impression of huge networks that are bolstered by pointlessly-inflated Klout scores, but despite dropping phrases like ROI into their copy they offer very little of real worth to anyone that has learned to use their new version of the telephone. In an age when social media should be moving people towards transparency, they are skilled at setting up false impressions that easily impress the last few clients on the block not savvy enough to see through it. In this respect, they have another historical counterpart – the snake oil salesman, the guy that used to ride into wild west towns, sell everyone a magic cure based on miraculous results witnessed by the crowd when some poor miscreant (who also happened to be a stooge) would suddenly be “cured.” Then they’d ride off to the next town before the last one discovered this stuff had done nothing at all or, worse, poisoned them. Often, the placebo effect would make people believe they had actually gained relief, so those salesmen knew which towns they could visit again and which ones would lynch them if they ever set foot in the place.

A couple of years ago, I saw the video below. It made me laugh so much that I immediately removed from any of my copy any kind of terminology that seemed to imply social media guru credentials. I (honestly!) wasn’t in the same game but I knew plenty who were and it seemed like a red flag, a warning not to be lumped in with this kind of behaviour. I watched it again. And what made me laugh more than anything was the thought that with 2012 just around the corner, it’s still relevant – unbelievably so.

To anyone that might consider employing one of these chumps, I beg you – ask why you need them. Again, this feels like a five year old issue, but it clearly needs restating. Ask why you need “social media” and be clear what exactly your company can use it for. Treat it like any other channel and apply some meaningful metrics. Your telephone is connected to – potentially – billions of people, but just because it has that potential connection doesn’t mean you are actually connected.

That connection depends on whether or not your business has anything they want. Without that, your Twitter follower count means precisely dick-all. If you have the kind of business that needs it, there are specialist call centre companies which can help with outsourcing. They work because they are well-trained, understand your business requirements and deliver against them. Outsourcing social media should mean nothing less, but it often does.

Whilst “social media strategy” used to mean “how to talk to customers through social media” it is now about the more complex relationships involved between organisations and their customers, including collaboration and co-creation and how to integrate what is created into business operations that run a profit. Social strategy is a part of digital strategy is a part of business and marketing strategy. It’s all inextricably linked. Stop being impressed by surface impressions and ask more questions about what this stuff does for you. Stop drinking the snake oil.

Like the boys who once ruled the switchboard roost, or the maker of the instructional film, the social media consultant will one day be consigned to a minor footnote in history, notable only as a passing interest that “huh, we once used to need people to tell us how to use this stuff.”

Huh. How about that?

 
5 Comments

Posted by on October 10, 2011 in Digital, Marketing, Social Media, Society

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Opinion: Google+ – has Google done it again?

A long time ago, in a company blog far, far away (don’t look for it, it isn’t there anymore*), I wrote about how Google had dropped the ball with Wave & Buzz. Rushing to judgement on Google+ is not smart, but I’m seeing a lot of the same signs and I think Google have a very small window of opportunity in which to make things right before their adoption rates start to atrophy.

Full disclosure: I love Google. They’ve given me free email that works better than anything else I’ve had, they solved the problem of porting contacts to a new mobile phone with Contacts (from an hour plus hassle to mere seconds in one fell swoop), the Calendar, Contacts and email all play nicely together and are bloody easy to set up on Blackberrys and other phones. They’ve given us Android and Chrome. And they have this search engine thingwhich is quite handy.Their maps have saved me navigational humiliation on many an occasion. I’ve never had to pay a penny for any of those things, too – so what’s not to like?

The problem with Wave and Buzz wasn’t the products themselves, necessarily. It was how we were introduced to them. Other Google products were developed by damned fine engineers, then released into a beta or Labs version, then tested & gradually released. I remember when Gmail invites were genuinely hard to come by, – and it was for more than just a few days, too. This process allowed engineering types to gradually absorb real user feedback, tweak, redevelop and re-release – it was a productive loop. Similarly, products and add-ons that got released to indifference would eventually slip quietly off the Labs list and disappear.That period also gave time for users to explore, experiment and develop a genuine love for the product.

But Wave & Buzz both did something that Google had never really done before (with the possible exception of Chrome at the time): they appeared in a traditional, PR-heavy blaze of publicity – they were announced as the finished, real deal. And, of course, they weren’t. Had Google released Wave to interested parties in a beta, they would have found all the little things that annoyed people or were just plain non-user-friendly. Perhaps by the time it reached a public release it would have been easier to use and adoption would have been steadier. Buzz was just a Twitter “me-too,” with seemingly only its ability to integrate into Gmail as anything like a USP.

"I would show you my manboobs if I thought you'd buy into the product"

People use phrases like “organic growth” far too much without really understanding what it means. Gmail was awesome in the light of the Hotmails and Yahoo!s that preceded it. Suddenly here was a nicely searchable, easy to use mail interface with seemingly unlimited storage space – it was so good that people became evangelists for no other reason than “this is good – you would love it.” By dropping a top-heavy marketing campaign on an unsuspecting public, expectations are raised, often unrealistically; there’s just no room for users to become enthusiastic of their own accord – all the enthusiasm has been generated for them. So there’s less incentive to talk about the product and far more interest in picking it apart. Instead of being able to help fix the holes, which happens with lab products, it’s too late – it’s a release version, it’s not that great, we all move on to something else.

Google+, then, has some great things going for it – I think “circles” is a decent answer to the definition of social media “friendships,” for example – but it also has a lot of holes. Private messaging is clunky, the mobile app side of things is shockingly bad (iPhone but not iPad or Touch? Really?) but most important of all is the lack of an open API – which would have helped solve all of those problems much quicker than Google can themselves.

What they should have done was test in private / semi-private for longer. They could have added / withdrawn functionality as required, let developers play with the API and start building apps to connect the dots. User feedback would have improved the usability for ordinary, non-techy types and by the time it reached a release version it would have been better. Those invites should then have been let out much more slowly to ensure that users were seeing the benefits and continue the tweaking at a reasonable pace.

But the main thing Google have forgotten is that there was no aching need for a new social network in the public-at-large. Much is made of Facebook’s privacy and other issues, but those are still issues that interest a relatively small slice of its user base. Diaspora’s privacy-hugging release has not dented Facebook one iota – there simply aren’t 100s of millions of people waiting for a replacement, they’re happy where they are. Likewise Twitter. Like Buzz, we now have a product with some natty features but we aren’t sure why we should trade up. Like Wave, we have other things that do that job for us – do I really need to learn how to use something new..?

We still love this stuff, right?

And key to all of it is a lack of mobile functionality. This wouldn’t matter so much if there was an open API and developers could start getting it in shape. The truth is, many developers will be better at mobile interfaces than Google. Despite all the time they’ve had – and their involvement in Android – Google is still hit and miss on mobile. In fact one respected angel investor has decried Google as almost a spent force, and not least because of a failure to get mobile working for them

It surprises me that people think something like a social network can be marketed like anything else – it’s a particular product that demands social acceptance and, yes, organic growth. That’s how you know it’s good, because it’s inherently “social.” Google+ is showing fast growth because they’re tapping into an existing Google customer base, within which is a voluminous tech-savvy bunch who have enough doubts about Facebook to want to try something new. I think their first 20 million users is easy. To reach 100 million they’re going to have to overcome a lot of the issues mentioned above as well as the fact that Twitter’s existing base seem happy enough. It’s not the Facebook-doubting Google-lovers they have to convince; it’s all those people’s friends that are on Facebook, because if they don’t leave or migrate, then those same tech-savvy types will just go back to where all their friends are.

Google had a way of working that set them apart from the competition. Whilst Microsoft was dumping effectively unfinished products into the market (poor iterations of Internet Explorer, Windows Vista, early Windows mobiles, vast swathes of clunky, memory-sapping  software), and relying on their brand and clout to sell them in, Google were the happy engineers, testing and tweaking and as close to their marketplace as they needed to be to succeed. Wave & Buzz looked like Microsoft launches, not Google; Google+ looks halfway between the two. If it works, it will be because the engineering side of their character shines through and they address quickly the issues that will hamper growth.

Google stands at a crossroads. Whilst their success as a multinational brand is probably unlikely to change in the light of advertising-based performance, their success as innovators may be in the balance. I hope they take the right path.

*Because mixing film references is fun, OK?

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Caution: Do Not Subscribe To This Blog

I really mean it. Perhaps that sounds odd in an age where everyone seems to be trying to gain a personal following. I mean, shouldn’t I be trying to build up an audience for this new blog? Should I not be kissing link-butt and drawing in you in? Maybe, but I don’t like the idea of “belief.” And following people – or, indeed, subscribing to their blogs – seems to engender a notion that one believes in them rather like one believes in a religion or political agenda. And that stuff is getting old, baby.

There is nothing that can't be said through the medium of lolcats

Let me explain: I am, basically, an old punk. My favourite band is probably  Dead Kennedys (caution: maybe NSFW / NSFL) and my favourite comedian Bill Hicks (likewise). It is plain weird to me that I have somehow, despite all my best efforts, ended up working in the field I do with the principles I hold dear, but that, as they say, is life. One of my main principles in thinking punkyish is that you burn your idols. You don’t have them. Nobody gets to be right just by virtue of who they are. Our political systems (West, East, everywhere) are based on the idea that we believe what certain of our leaders say with often then very lightest of questioning.

This is a form of idolatry. I want to question everybody, I want to know what they know so I can see whether their conclusions are ones I would come to myself. We all tend to use cognitive shortcuts – instead of examining the raw data or information, we rely on the source – some like The Guardian, some like The Times; some follow the guy with that kind of beard, some with this kind of hat. Are you a Redditor or a 4Channer or a Digg-er? Noam Chomsky or Leo Strauss?

There is a certain necessity in all of this. Few people have the time to examine every fact for themselves; more importantly, few have the intellect. There is no reason why anyone who has not studied economics (academically or in practice) should hold a valid opinion on whether or not we raise interest rates or cut taxes. This is why debates like whether or not the UK should join the Euro are reduced to nationalist issues such as whether or not the Queen’s head would be on a 10 Euro note or whether or not it’s a matter of national sovereignty. The media – and commentators, blogs etc – act as a filter or translation mechanism. If you don’t understand an issue personally, then you use outlets you trust to make those decisions for you.

This is a responsibility which is often abused. Headlines about health that play on fear or offer unrealistic hope by pulling a medicine trial result out of context – cancer is not necessarily cured because a bunch of rats showed some promising results in a single experiment. But media need to sell papers and advertising and bloggers need their status and ego-stroking, so that’s what tends to happen. Andrew Wakefield falsifies results in a tiny trial regarding autism and the MMR vaccine to bolster his shareholding in a company which sells single-shot vaccines. Years later, children suffer from diseases which had all but been eradicated; media and others have used the confirmation of what they “believe” in the media to bolster what they think they “know.” And it’s totally understandable – we just don’t have the time or intellect to read up on everything we need to have an opinion on, be sure of the validity of the source of the information and interpret it accordingly. Which begs the question: do you really need an opinion on every subject?

Believing something and knowing something  are two very different things. Scientists are supposedly the benchmark: a good scientist can hypothesise on something for years, treating it almost like a belief, but – unlike, say, religious or political people – when the evidence shows them to be wrong, they change their minds.Science is not a belief system – it’s about being able to observe something and repeat it, in essence it’s only about what can be actually proved to be true. It requires no belief other in one’s own eyes and ears.

In practice, of course, that isn’t often the case. Andrew Wakefield still “believes” he is right (as he is paid quite a lot of money to do so) despite all the evidence proving he is quite wrong. Renegade / sceptical climate scientists make a name for themselves by being available to undermine the 97%+ of climate scientists who agree that the evidence is compelling. The public’s difficulty in sorting the wheat from the proverbial chaff (most of us are lucky to have a physics or chemistry GCSE let alone a career’s worth of learning to be able to decide for ourselves) and so we fall back on belief.

Where the science element fails is often not in the science or scientists, but in those that follow them. I love Ben Goldacre’s work in this respect, but those that follow him tend to use his proclamations as fact when they are often opinion (which he is entitled to) – I suspect relatively few of those that cite him understand his actual scientific work in the slightest. I also adore the work of Adam Curtis as he’s one of the few documentary makers I’ve come across who can stimulate thought and discussion around complex topics, but it’s foolish to take it all at face value and represent as pure fact. This is exactly what religions and political parties do; you may believe that God sent the 10 commandments for his people on Earth but how much more of a religion’s commandments are actually just interpretations by mere mortal men & women? You may believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy because your political party tells you it does and provides you with a single historical example of when this appeared true – but does it also show you examples of all the times when it didn’t?

This is why I love the likes of Wikileaks and (some) hackers. The opening and democratisation of information allows people to see the facts for themselves without the media’s filter process. The downside is that people often do not recognise their own shortcomings in interpreting the information. But that problem is the same with or without the media in the middle of the process. My mother clearly has trouble questioning what The Daily Express tells her – give her the raw data and she’ll still most likely see what she wants. In that respect, I think she’s fairly typical of most of us, whatever publications we choose.

Some credit, then, to Noam Chomsky this week. He’s someone I both love and hate, although most people treat him in exactly the fashion I am trying to address. They either idolise him and repeat every word as gospel or treat him with contempt and ignore everything. But this week he did an interesting volte face. He’s previously hailed Hugo Chavez for his socialist revolution in Venezuela. But he’s also had the guts to say “Actually, you’ve gone a bit wrong there, pal” when it matters. Must be hard to lionise someone one moment and then be critical when required. Try finding newspapers that apologise for their errata with the same amount of column inches they gave over to being wrong in the first place.

Truth is, Google (or Wolfram Alpha or Bing) is my guide. If I want information on a subject I look for it and try and find as commendable a source as my feeble brain can understand. What I don’t do is have a small selection of media outlets on which I rely for information. If I see something in The Independent I may wish to cross-check it with The Guardian, Telegraph or specialist blogs. Just because I see a good post by a blogger does not mean that everything they write is spot-on. This kind of thing is endemic in the kind of people I meet in my work. Malcom Gladwell, Clay Shirky, Jeff Jarvis, Robert Scoble. All good, intelligent people, but whilst some of their work appeals, some of it is, frankly, utter shit – churned out to sell a book, bolster blog traffic or gain new followers. Once anyone is in the business of providing information, their motives should always be treated as suspicious. That scepticism is healthy – although instantly disbelieving someone because they make a buck is equally stupid.

”]Belief is like a cancer. It grows in a person until they can no longer function effectively. How on Earth can it be that people believed in the Rapture / end of the World? Because they believed in Harold Camping. That’s bad enough, but when he’s proved wrong by a distinct lack of, y’know, earthly destruction, how can people continue to believe him. In fact, people’s beliefs are more likely to be strengthened even when they are “proved” wrong. Seriously, how mad is that?

So forget your idols. David Cameron is not right about everything by virtue of being Prime Minister. Obama is not wrong about everything by virtue of being “leftist”. Your rabbi / imam / priest / prophet is there to be questioned not idolised, your favourite writer / commentator / scientist is just one voice. And yours should be asking “Why? How? When?” or maybe just “WTF?”

So, as I said: do not subscribe to this blog.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 4, 2011 in Digital, Marketing, Social Media, Society

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blocked on Twitter / Am I just bitter?

Tempting tho’ it was to end that title with “You can’t get fitter / Than a Kwik-Fit fitter,” I’ll move right along. An odd thing happened this morning – I woke up and found that the writer & broadcaster Andrew Collins had blocked me on Twitter, following a conversation we had yesterday.

I thought there was a point worth exploring for a blog post – that of celebrities who are happy to use Twitter when it benefits them but rankle when their audience dares to be anything less than celebratory about their output, as well as the difficulty of engaging (as a mere punter) with people you like and remaining sufficiently critical of whatever they have to say. However, the difficult thing is to ask the question without sounding as if there’s a bitter tinge to anything I say.

I passive-aggressively respond by failing to provide a photo credit. TAKE THAT COLLINS!

So to be clear – I was already writing some notes on the topic with regards to Johann Hari. In case you’ve missed it here’s a summary.  Now, I quite like his writing, I like the passion and invective as well as his hunger for facts. But the reasonable side of my brain also notes that he’s occasionally wayward in both evidence and style – call it artistic license or personality at one end of the scale or inaccuracy / following an agenda at the other. Is it possible to like someone’s writing even though you know they aren’t 100% “correct”?

Of course it is. Writing is not (always) like science. Science communication needs to be accurate because it concerns the transmission of facts; but facts alone simply do not win arguments outside of evidence-based practitioners like scientists. So there’s a need for some art – and Hari does his job well. This article is a good example – some good use of economics and history, packaged in a way his audience is likely to understand it. But at the end, he loses it a bit and gets all shouty. That’s his style, and it’s very effective. And then you read someone else’s take on the article and wonder if it was as good as you thought it was. And let’s face it – there is rarely such a thing as “100% correct” when you’re not talking about maths or physics.

But if you’re style is passion, don’t be surprised when the naysayers react passionately when you fuck up. You can’t hold other people to high standards and expect people to just instantly forgive you. I was especially surprised that a lot of the people who usually are first in line to bash inaccurate reporting were also first in line to defend Hari. Why? Because they tend to agree with his point of view. (It’s also wholly valid to say that Hari’s mistakes are not on a par with those who falsify / ignore evidence to support their point of view, a position I agree with, but the boy did wrong and admitting it doesn’t weaken his talent). This blog post from the excellent David Allen Green pretty much sums it up for me re Johann Hari, by the way.

Similarly, I like Andrew Collins’ broadcasting & writing. He’s pretty funny, has some interesting stuff to say about films and his 6 Music stuff with Richard Herring is excellent, as are the podcasts. He also is a defender of homeopathy, which I loathe. That does not (nor should it) stop me finding the rest of his work worthwhile. If I read the Guardian, I may be in line with 50% of its opinions; the fact I find the other 50% unpalatable is no reason not to read the rest. There’s barely anyone you will ever meet and call a friend that you agree with 100% on everything.

The great thing about Twitter is that it gives people a chance to discuss their work in a way that has rarely been possible before. Some are good at commenting on their own blog / newspaper website pieces and responding to criticism. Some never do. My feeling is that, in this day and age, you need to do it. No work goes without question, nor should it. If Melanie Phillips is to have the freedom to spout complete crap, then the crowd should have the right of reply. When your work is published to a potential readership in the millions, it’s irresponsible to be misquoting evidence and downright wrong to be fraudulent. People being able to challenge, clarify, respond – that’s just what happens in a free society, right?

If you write on a site with a big audience, the rules are different; you have an audience which is using you as a shortcut to opinion and information. Good writers are those that can take a complex issue and translate it for the rest of us. Not everybody is an economist or a scientist or a politician, and those issues need some explaining for most people – and that is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. Social media should help sort the wheat from the chaff. In the past, a writer could get by with a modicum of skill and written charisma; they could present something as a fait accompli and most of their audience wouldn’t know any better. Now, however, those in the crowd that know what they’re on about can challenge those assertions and the discussion around it becomes as informative as the original article.

So, then, Andrew Collins. Why would anyone post this?

Innocent enough

Note the question mark at the end. Almost looks like it’s inviting a discussion. Either you post something about what you’re working on to invite discussion or you do it because… what? You think people are just interested without comment? Isn’t that the equivalent of “I’m having a coffee” type status updates? “Look at me! I’m interesting by virtue of my very existence!”

OK, we all do it. I’m as guilty as anyone. But I don’t care if someone wants to pick me up on it or criticise me for it. I’m posting in public so I must surely expect it, right?

So, I politely (I thought) questioned the validity of a writer for a big site reviewing Top Gear when they’ve never watched it before. This is a series that has run for years, so what’s the point of a review based on watching one episode? Context is everything – the examples I mentioned in reply stood up as far as I was concerned. Have a look at Collins’ timeline for details – I’d Storify it, but I’m blocked. Haha. 

But what I find amazing is how personally he took it – and how I was then “a Top Gear fan” and, basically, an utter arse for even daring to question his work. I don’t mind a bit of Top Gear, despite the fact I think 2/3 of the presenter team are total arseholes. Same deal as with reading a newspaper or liking Andrew Collins’ work… but I’m no fanboy, and I wasn’t defending Top Gear, I was questioning the editorial policy of reviewing based on one person’s watching one episode  – surely then it becomes about the writer (and their experience) rather than the subject in question? Maybe that’s OK, but I didn’t see Collins in the same bracket as, say, Charlie Brooker, where the experience is all about him personally.

I don’t doubt that there are circumstances where mere “broadcast” is suitable for Twitter, but it’s not really making the most of the format. News feeds as broadcast work fine, but human beings on Twitter become part of the bigger conversation. If you don’t like talking to people or can’t stand criticism then it’s a strange place to put yourself. Everything has a price and the price of gaining profile, traffic and adulation on the one hand is being open to criticism and questioning on the other.

Let’s be clear about this – if you give, you receive. Both the good stuff and the bad. Blocking people is fine for spammers, but if you don’t like someone’s opinion, just ignore it. Or unfollow them. I prefer to follow people from all walks of life – I like to know what people who don’t naturally agree with me think – it’s a big world and restricting your field of vision seems rather narrow-minded. In this case, I think it’s a little bit babyish / Stalinist to block someone simply because you don’t agree with their point of view.

Of course, the rule is: don’t feed the trolls. But I wasn’t trolling, even if I was being marginally cheeky. If I wanted to troll Andrew Collins, I’d have mentioned that, by homeopathic principles, his watching one episode probably imbues him with the knowledge of the entire canon of Top Gear works…

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Best practice in spam beats a lot of social media agencies

The concept of “survival of the fittest” applies to marketing as much as anywhere. Marketers need to stay one step ahead of both their audience and their rivals in order to reach a competitive advantage. And spammers, like the porn industry, are rapacious in their quest to make use of new technologies to gain that teensy extra percentage of traction.

No guns were bitten in the making of this image

This is as subtle as spammers usually get

Spam is usually seen as “throw mud at a wall and hope some of it sticks” discipline. According to a recent study  it takes around 12.5 million emails to generate c. $100 of Viagra sales, which is a lot of mud being chucked at a lot of walls.

Twitter spam is a trickier business. For a start, mere link spamming is likely to get an account blocked & banned pretty quickly, but spammers set up so many accounts – and so quickly – that they are back in the game before you can say “0 followers, 97 tweets”. My spidey sense starts tingling the moment I check out a new follower and see they’re following a load of people with no followers in return. These usually have a profile pic of a woman aimed at a particular demographic (some are saucy, some are not – segmentation in practice), and you can usually tell it’s spam from the fact the profile name and the user name are different. It’s a quick press of “block & report spam” and we all go on with our lives.

So I was quite impressed with one account that hooked me in unawares. Sometimes when you get followed by someone that looks vaguely interesting you figure you’ll follow them and they might turn up the odd interesting comment in the Twitter stream from time to time. A little background music, if you will. Last week, I was followed by “Cool Like Linsey“. She had some pretty good little quotes going on and seemed to be in conversation with some of her followers. I blindly followed.

And then I got a little non-Follow Friday shout:

Oooh I feel special

Getting my attention

Well, hey, that’s nice I thought. I mean, I’m an interesting guy, so why not? Ego stroked, I went on my way. A few days later I noticed her giving similar (i.e. exactly same copy) shouts to others. And the penny dropped.

This is about reducing attrition. By giving me a seemingly genuine follow shout-out I think “Oh I’d better not unfollow her. She was nice to me.” I am a sap, obviously. Brands are slow to repost content or retweet stuff from their followers as they worry about highlighting users who may turn out to be off-message or degenerate. So they err on the side of caution and stick to a bit of conversation without the stamp of approval a retweet may give.

Here, then, is an account which does pretty bloody well at masking its true intent. It’s pretty much best practice in Twitter spam as of today. The account pumps out decently-researched historical / philosophical quotes:

"I may need to procreate with this deep and meaningful, yet utterly saucy, woman"

I am a sap.

But then, just for a few hours at a time, there’s links to a couple of apps / ads for eyeglasses. And then it’s back to shouting out for follows for her followers and quoting away. Smart stuff.

In this way, you can see how spammers are going to evolve to match market expectations just the way a brand or corporation or anyone else does. She (? Who knows if it’s male, female or bot?) focuses on her audience, targets her content to a narrower niche and drops the marketing in smaller, less noticeable chunks. And she’s now rotating the copy in her follow shout-outs too.

The truth is, as social media practices go, this beats an awful lot of agency-led / PR-savvy brand accounts out there. Eventually accounts like this will die off, although someone like this will have clearly evolved whatever is effective elsewhere long before that happens.

Targeting, copy adjustment, a degree of subtlety and creativity.

At this point you have to ask, “Is this spam? Or just… marketing?”

I hate it, but some degree of respect is due.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,