thenewmarketing : Trust & Ethics

Guest post: A journalist's thoughts on Twittering the news

Wade Rockett — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:33:00 GMT

After I posted about Twitter-connected citizens posting updates on the Iowa caucus, I talked about the event online (using Twitter, natch) with James Geluso, city goverment reporter at the Bakersfield Californian. I asked James if he'd write a guest post for TNM sharing his thoughts about the Iowa experiment, and the risks and opportunities of using Twitter in the newsroom.

*********************

Patrick Ruffini says his experiment using Twitter to collect Iowa caucus results was "an unqualified success." And it was, for what it was. Had I known about it beforehand, I'd have followed it for sure.

But Ruffini gets a little, shall we say, overenthusiastic about what it achieved:

Very shortly after 7 p.m. central time, all the reports were pointing in a single direction: a big night for Barack Obama. This led me to post at 7:20 p.m. that the trendlines were for Obama, long before the media caught on.

Well, sure, it's easy when you set the bar low. I looked through the tweets from the night and counted 11 reports from Twitter users from Democratic caucuses. Eleven. That's results from 0.6 percent of the 1,781 precincts. It's not that the media hadn't caught on, it's that they have to refrain from making calls until they have, say, 75 percent of the results in. Anything less and they'll be savaged for being irresponsible. And making a call based on fewer points is unsafe. If NBC called it wrong, there'd be a storm of outrage. If Ruffini called it wrong, would anybody mind?

It's also worth noting that while Ruffini derides dispatching two dozen stringers to caucus locations throughout Iowa, about a third of the tweets that night were relaying information gleaned from the mainstream media: both entrance poll results and official counts reported by the state party.

Don't get me wrong. Ruffini's experiment was great, and hopefully will pave the way for an army of Twitterers who can provide unofficial and comprehensive results in the 2012 caucuses. And it's better to have it than to not. But so far, the best it promises is a faster and less accurate version of what the professionals provide.

So that was Thursday night. What happens with Twitter and news coverage next?

There are two sides to new techonologies: use for collection of news, and use for distribution. Ruffini's system used Twitter for both, which I think is the best use of it.

As a collection mechanism, the problem is with the number of people and with identifying them. If, say, CNN put out a call for people to tweet to them to report numbers, how would it verify that these people are not campaign workers or even at the caucus? News organizations have to know who is talking to them, even if they are willing to withhold their names in print (which the national media is, and local media tends not to be). They could say something like, "Our Twitter poll indicates Obama leading," but then they're doing what they get criticized for -- calling results before the results are in.

They could use Twitter as a way to collect responses, the way ABC used Facebook Saturday night, but then it depends on how they edit them. ABC picked the lamest, most boring, citizen comment to read on the air between the debates, and used lame questions for the polls; but that's a problem with ABC, not with Facebook.

I wonder if Twitter could be used to set up a "discussion group" for people watching the debates or something. Would the signal-to-noise ratio be high enough?

For news distribution, I don't know. Would Twitter be better for a news organization than having people sign up at NewsOrganization.com for news? Or maybe it doesn't have to be either/or. I'd like to see topical news alerts made available through Twitter, but with 140 characters I'm not sure the amount of news you'd get would be worth it for the number of times your phone would beep with NewsOrganization.com trying to get your attention.

- James Geluso

Bill Gates answers your questions at CES 2008

Wade Rockett — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:26:00 GMT

Readers of the BBC News Website are invited to submit questions for Microsoft's Chairman, who will answer them at the upcoming Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Maybe someone will ask him, "If I give my personal data to a social network, who owns it?"

(Thanks to Simona for the tip.)

Facebook users surprised to find themselves in ads

Wade Rockett — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:10:00 GMT

Marketer David Berkowitz was surprised (and none too pleased) to discover that Blockbuster was using his name and likeness in advertisements that appeared on his friends' Facebook profiles. Berkowitz later found himself unintentionally endorsing an application he feels only so-so about; and another friend of his appeared in a Blockbuster ad for the movie Jackass 2.5.

True, Berkowitz had registered as a "fan" of Blockbuster's Facebook page, but he didn't know that this constituted an agreement to appear in the company's ads. Who would? If I say that I like a particular product on my blog, why would I think that gives the manufacturer a license to turn me into a company mascot?

Muddying the waters a bit is the nature of Facebook's News Feed. When I declare myself a Fan of a company's Page, that event is displayed in all of my friends' feeds. As the description of Pages says:

When your fans interact with your Facebook Page, the actions they take are automatically generated into social stories. These stories are published to News Feed, which friends may see the next time they log into Facebook. The stories link back to your Facebook Page, inviting more people to interact with it, which generates more social stories and drives even more traffic to your Page. Think of it as word-of-mouth marketing, only completely free and happening online.

Much like Jim Carrey's life in The Truman Show, my interactions with brands on Facebook are broadcast to others as part of a marketing campaign. However, those "social stories" are told through actions taken on my initiative: "Wade just did X on Page Y. If you love Y too, get on board!" Furthermore, I can hide those interactions from the News Feed using Facebook's privacy settings. I do not have any control over social ads: no way to prevent companies from putting my name and face in ads, and no way of preventing them from showing those ads to my friends. When I lose control this way, it doesn't make me feel like a valued customer. It makes me feel like a serf.

It also potentially wreaks havoc with our reputations online. It's not as if I present myself as some sort of John Houseman figure here, but I most definitely don't want my personal brand associated with Jackass 2.5.

Looking at this from a user perspective, the solution to protect myself is simple: don't join groups, add applications, make myself a fan of anything, or interact with anyone but actual people. (Or quit Facebook altogether.)

But from a marketer's perspective, I'd like to see Facebook users continue to do those things, and I'd like to see companies engage those users in fun, creative, and empowering ways. So how about Facebook requiring companies to get people's explicit approval before using their names and faces in ads? It seems like a fairly reasonable thing to ask.

Connecting with strangers: sociability, or spam?

Wade Rockett — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:07:00 GMT

Fig 1. Expect next year's gripping sequel, Naked Came The Stranger To Facebook

As social networking becomes more widespread as a tool for keeping in touch with with friends, family, business associates, and nice people you bump into at conferences, it's increasingly becoming a good idea to create a "friending policy". But what's the good of a policy saying who you want to approach you, if someone has to approach you to find out what it is?

Some of my friends and colleagues on Facebook have a very open policy regarding invitations: if you invite them to connect, they will accept. Period. Some ask that invitations come with a personal message that gives the relationship some context ("Hi! I was the guy at MonkeyFest 2007 who asked you what brand of chow you feed your Rhesus Macaque.") Others accept invitations only from people they've met in person or interacted with online, and others will only add close friends and family to their network.

That's quite a range, isn't it? Whether a stranger's invitation to connect is sociability or spam is defined by the invitee's personal preferences. There's no way to figure out what those preferences are through Facebook. You have to hope that they've made that information available somewhere else, such as their blogs. (Here's Shel Israel's; and here, a professor spells out his policy for new students.)

Facebook could help resolve this problem by giving users the ability to create a policy (or choose from a menu of preferences) that would be visible on their search profiles. MySpace actually has a nice setting that requires potential friends to know either your last name or e-mail address in order to send you a request--that's a good start, though not as flexible as what I'm envisioning.

Some services deal with the issue by treating all invitations from strangers as spam, and make such invitations grounds for terminating an account. Take a look at paragraph three of the article "Pulse Connections and your Address Book " on Plaxo's Help center (via fweez):

Who should I connect to?
Everyone you care about! Your family, your REAL friends (not your “social network friends”), and your business network. It’s also important that you refrain from connecting to people you don’t know. This will weaken your network and make the content in your Pulse less interesting - besides, it's rude and against Plaxo's use policy.

You can add people you don't know to your Plaxo Address Book, but you can't connect with them on Plaxo without violating its Use Policy.

And here's a snippet from LinkedIn's User Agreement (the boldface is mine), in which you agree not to:

Upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, “junk mail,” “spam,” “chain letters,” “pyramid schemes,” or any other form of solicitation. This prohibition includes but is not limited to a) Using LinkedIn invitations to send messages to people who don’t know you or who are unlikely to recognize you as a known contact; b) Using LinkedIn to connect to people who don’t know you and then sending unsolicited promotional messages to those direct connections without their permission; and c) Sending messages to distribution lists, newsgroup aliases, or group aliases.

I genuinely appreciate their efforts to protect me from spammers and other irritants. However, I'd like to have a more flexible way of managing my social life online, one that doesn't rely on Terms Of Service to tell me who my "real" friends are.

Wal-Mart tries again

Steve Ellis — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:35:00 GMT

Wal-Mart is venturing into the blogosphere again. Previous forays gave the US retail giant (and its PR agency) a bloody nose.

Not being an American, I don't quite understand the degree of antipathy toward Wal-Mart. It certainly seems that if they slip up, there is a big queue of people waiting to kick them.

So how does their new blog look? It looks good, perhaps a little too good. Given the scepticism around this company's intentions, authenticity and credibility should be the over-riding priority in order to rebuild trust. In a similar vein the name - Checkout - is a tricky one, catchy yes, but with a few too many meanings to play with. Certainly the site is very clearly branded as Wal-Mart this time around.

Having scanned a variety of archived posts, it seemed to be a blog searching for a purpose. The categories suggest that too: Gadgets, Gaming, Lawns & Garden, Movies and Sustainability. That's an eclectic mix of subject matter to meld together in a cohesive way. But perhaps that will emerge with time.

Jeremiah got there first and raises similar concerns and has already gathered some vitriolic feedback too.

Jeremiah also noted that the site isn't entirely Wal-Mart's own work. Their PR agency is involved, at least in 'moderating comments'. Which is fine. I can wholly understand that. Wal-Mart execs are busy people and some of the admin needs to be shared out to make sure it gets done promptly. But just slip a sentence or two explaining that in the About section...

Tags: Wal-Mart, blogging

Italy may require bloggers to register with government

Steve Ellis — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:49:00 GMT

Pinsent Mason's legal newswire, OUT-LAW News has a story on upcoming Italian legislation covering "editorial products", that may require bloggers to register with the government simply to publish a private blog.

I suspect the keyword is *may*. One has to assume the wording of the law will eventually be fine tuned to avoid the sort of legislation more typically associated with the world's more dubious regimes.

Tags: OUT-LAW News, blogging, law

Cost of a wiretap

Steve Ellis — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:28:00 GMT

I don't why I find this snippet interesting.

The Raw Story runs a story on the cost a wiretap, or telephone tap to us Brits.

Comcast will fix a wiretap for you at $1,000 to install, then its $750 a month to keep on eavesdropping. Not a bad margin I reckon.

Although, they can't actually fix it for 'you' as such though, not unless you are an FBI agent that is.

Tags: wiretap, FBI, Comcast

How do you measure influence?

Steve Ellis — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:43:00 GMT

A naive question I know, but interesting to read that Richard Holway - formerly of Ovum and the eponymously named Richard Holway Ltd - now regards himself as an influencer not an analyst. And that he aspires to be a trusted influencer.

I've paid to get Holway's views on the tech sector for a decade or more, and without question would describe him as 'influencer royalty' within the UK software industry.

But the example of Holway also brings into focus why it is so hard to define what makes an influencer. Is it because he is an analyst, or a blogger, or trusted counsel, or a non-exec participant in boardrooms, or simply because he gets to engage with key people, speaks to them, informs their opinion and thus drives the marketplace?

How much of that authority comes fom his company and how much is attributed to the individual?

If in the pit of my stomach I instinctively know he is a significant player, why does any of this matter?

Well, because I have to measure his 'influence' in order to justify his inclusion in our client's relationship programs. Then I have to measure the impact of those programs to prove their value. Interestingly if he is to monetize his voice, as per his post, Richard too needs to find a mechanism for measuring influence.

Turning the measurement of influence among a new generation of influencers from an art form into a science is one of the biggest challenges facing communications professionals today. Yes, I have seen the different ranking tables, which mashup (if Excel counts as a mashup tool) various ranking sources in different proportions to suggest an uber ranking of influence but there are too many subjective leaps of faith, and too much underlying distrust in the measurement mechanisms and data sources to vest complete confidence in these tables.

Right now, there is no satisfactory answer. If you have one - a proper one that bears detailed review and doesn't feature the achilles heel of subjective ranking. I'd be interested to hear about it.

Invasion of the PR people

Steve Ellis — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:58:00 GMT

Something a bit strange about following the wise words of Forrester's marketing team blog over many months, and then finding someone from a PR agency - Chris Thilk of MWW - suddenly joining the conversation on the site.

All completely transparent and adequately trailed, all intelligent comments on the blog, but still a bit strange to see appearing under the Forrester brand.

Then again, maybe James would let me... nah, can't see it.

On a related point very, very smart of Forrester to hire Jeremiah. Makes a great team even stronger. Interesting to see if his style changes at all.

Tags: Forrester, Chris Thilk, Jeremiah Owyang

Want to be an A-lister?

Steve Ellis — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:56:00 GMT

Every now and again stir up PR agencies (preferably on a Friday afternoon).

Then sit back and watch the response.

Tags: Tom Foremski, PR is dead (again)

Help with your budget underspend problem

Steve Ellis — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:32:00 GMT

Is there something a little bit too direct about this Datamonitor email pitch to clients and prospects?

What would the company accountants say?

Then again the discounts are good, sign up for yours here.

CubeVoice: post secrets about your company and get on Digg

Wade Rockett — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:00 GMT

CubeVoice...okay, CubeVoice is like Twitter, except you identify yourself as an employee of your company and carry on text conversations with your colleagues and interested outsiders in public. These conversations are aggregated and displayed in a Twitter feed.

Now, there is an unofficial Metia group on Facebook, and Metia employees join and they talk about this and that. That seems okay. But something about this CubeVoice setup gives me the willies.

Maybe it's CubeVoice's Twitter stream, which puts an update by a Weber Shandwick employee next to an update by someone claiming to work for "Burger Dude", saying that he's just soiled himself.

Or the update by a Ruby Tuesday employee announcing that the company has implemented "Lots of stupid changes."

Maybe it's this line in the site's FAQ: Ideally, you will post sexy secrets about your company that will get on the front page of Digg.

The new MCC - that's the Microsoft Cricket Club

Steve Ellis — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:38:00 GMT

Is it possible for a company to be evil and also play cricket?

I thought I knew a lot about Microsoft but this Reuters story put a new spin on it (sorry).

Disclosure: Microsoft are both a partner and customer, so if anyone wants to read anything into this post, they probably can...

Riot On!

Steve Ellis — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:00:00 GMT

TV and film directors don't very often get the tech industry right, but last night I stumbled upon Riot On! on BBC4.

Riot On! nailed it for me. It may strictly speaking have been about a mobile entertainment company - its the 'story' of Riot Entertainment and the entertainingly Nordic ways they found to flush away euro20 million of funding - but it could also be the story of quite few dotcoms on either side of the Atlantic. I met a few of them for sure.

I was obviously AWOL when this film 'documentary' came out in 2004 and first appeared on UK TV in 2006 (but then isn't that what all these digital channels are for?), so if this is old news to you, forgive me.

If you want to see it, it's not impossible it'll show up again on BBC4. There appear to be few couple clips and various out takes on YouTube. Here's how the BBC described it.

Riot On!: Storyville
When a few friends decide to set up Riot Entertainment, a new company offering games on mobile phones, they employ family and friends and a man at a bus stop and persuade several major companies to invest $20million in their new venture. Very strong language and some sexual scenes.

Tags: Riot On!, Riot Entertainment, BBC4, dotcom

What have we been changing on Wikipedia? THE ANSWERS MAY SHOCK YOU.

Wade Rockett — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:16:00 GMT

Wikiscanner matches the IP ranges of various companies with edits to Wikipedia that were made from those IP addresses. This information was always available for anyone to see, but going through all of the pages and edit histories and IP ranges manually was a weary, grinding process. Wikiscanner makes it easy.

So if you ever tinkered with Wikipedia to polish up your company's (or client's) image, you may be doing some damage control soon. (For example, it revealed that employees at a videogame company deleted information about the company’s founder and about a particular controversy.)

So naturally, the first thing I did was look up Metia.

Hooray! No entries!

Hold on. There's something under Write Image. Deep breath. Here we go.

Here’s the edits made from the London office.

Agh! Someone edited the entry for BAE Systems?! I wrote a case study about them! What did we change?

Oh, okay. It looks like a bit of rearranging, that's all. Probably from one of those obsessive writers or editors. (*cough, cough*)

Hmm. Nothing from the Singapore office? Must investigate this further--like the man says, you gotta watch the ones who always keep their hands clean...

And finally, the edits made from the Seattle office. At last, the awful truth is revealed: we are nerds.

(I'll 'fess up to that edit to Leo Laporte. Merlin Mann deserves his props.)