Democracy PR - Manchester PR, digital and social media agency » Twitter

Google’s Contribution to Social Networks

fraser — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:57:00 +0000

Google+, remember that? It’s still there you know, although you are statistically less likely to know it if you’re a) not male or b) not a geek. It seems mad to suggest that with over 20m users the platform is not considered a popular social network, but with Facebook’s active users amounting to 800m and counting only a deluded Googler would dare declare Google + a contender for the world’s most popular social networking site..

What I’d like to suggest though is that Google has contributed hugely to our social experience, even those of you who aren’t aware of Google+.

Something Borrowed and Something New

Quite simply for every intelligent Google + feature that seems to get good feedback from the community Facebook has rolled out something similar.

So Google has circles to allow users to decide what information they see and where it’s inherently an intelligent privacy model too. To match this Facebook rolled out various features including a Subscribe button allows you to mute certain friends without them knowing (just as putting them in a ‘ignore’ circle on Google+) . Smart lists were introduced allowing a user to see a specific subset of their friends, typical circles on Google+ have been ‘friends’, ‘co-workers’, ‘In the neighbourhood’ and ‘College friends’ and these same subsets are the default smart lists on the new Facebook profile. Importantly the privacy model has changed. Privacy settings are now inline with each post allowing you to modify exactly who you share each post with- you’ll never guess where else this exists. Google +? Yes. The company made privacy a fundamental cornerstone of its product ( I blogged about it here), I’m delighted that Facebook reacted.

Another feature to have been borrowed is improved image settings. Given how huge sharing photos is to the community (not least to brands) it was about time the presentation received a little attention. Images are larger and displayed at a higher resolution, mimicking Google+’s brilliant work on the photo front. Alongside geeks, Google+ is beloved by the photography community.

Facebook’s blog details each feature in an insightful blog, although there’s no mention of where the inspiration lies.

Adapt and Evolve

What I hope is that Facebook continues to borrow and consequently offer an improved service. How else can they progress if there isn’t a competitor? The impending timeline switch is coming soon and once the hubbub dies down it will be a welcome feature that allows users (and eventually brands) to tell a more complete story.

The latest Google+ feature is the creative kit which allows users to apply filters to their images and ‘auto-fix’ them. With the popularity of Instagram, Hipstomatic and the new Flickr app it can’t be too far away, it’s my bet it will be introduced by Christmas.

The secret life of Vogue – or is it?

hannah — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:30:16 +0000

Retweet

‘The Devil Wears Prada’ gave us an ‘unofficial’ hint as to what it would be like to work in the glossy fashion mecca that is Vogue, depicting scenes of backstabbing, designer clothes, bitching and beautiful people – Conde Nast may have thought that with the movie done and dusted, the public’s curiosity into the famously cut throat world of fashion had wained…. Then, along came @condeelevator!

The tweets claimed to be accounts of conversations overheard~ in the lift of Vogue’s HQ in New York sent out jus 36 tweets but managed to amass 68,485 followers (to date), all looking for an insight into the everyday life of the ridiculously stylish.

The tweets were hilariously entertaining, and whether they were real (which appears to be the case as they have stopped – before the fashion police could catch them!) or fabricated, in my movie-tinged mind, that is exactly how Vogue US is. “Woman #1 to Woman #2, holding an omelet: “What’s the occasion?” Woman #2: “…huh?” Woman #1: “I would need an occasion to eat that.”

A Conde Nast spokeswoman said in an statement to ABCNews.com ”We have no idea if this is real or made up and don’t know who is behind it but it certainly suggests that many people care a great deal about what happens at Conde Nast.”

Vogue’s reputation has survived untarnished by the 2006 movie, and the 2009 September issue documentary that depicted Anna Wintour as a bit of an ice queen (I love you Anna!), so I hardly think that this twitter insight would do them any harm, but nonetheless, @Condeelevator account has died a twitter death, with the last tweet stating “Girl or Guy #1 [in elevator alone]: This got really crazy. Love my job. Better stop. #sorry”

Hopefully that’s not the end… what I’d do to be a fashionable fly on that elevator wall!

Going Round In Circles

fraser — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:20:13 +0000

Retweet

Google+’s system of sharing information is a refined (if not quite intuitive) and intelligent application of something we’ve been doing here at Democracy PR for some time: sharing the right information with the right people.

Whereas Facebook’s privacy settings are lax by default and continue to be until you adjust the settings, Google’s model of sharing permits us, encourages even, to share with the right people. Placing people into your private circles (no one but you is aware of which circle you put them into) allows you to define separate groups with whom you can share content. You may have circles for colleagues and friends (depending on how happy you are at work there may well be some crossover here!) or groups for distinct people; The boss, The wife and the kids maybe?

Share and Share a ‘Like’

Now, as an agency with real strength in social media we’re unsurprisingly well-versed in sharing carefully online. We’re all huge advocates of twitter in the office but unless we create two profiles, or more, it’s difficult to find one voice to manage all your followers. We introduced a hashtag, #dpr, to differentiate work and industry related tweets from all other stuff, be it reality t.v., rants about public transport or poor customer service, and nights out. While it doesn’t remedy the difficulties of managing a mix of followers it’s certainly a smarter way to manage the content on our twitter feed on the website.

The web is littered with stories of employees who have tweeted inappropriate messages due to a mix up between personal and professional profiles. Just as when a Red Cross social media specialist tweeted about getting drunk from the Red Cross account and the tweet exploded. Searching for the Red Cross Twitter account? You’ll likely see the negative story just as quickly as the twitter account on a Google search results page. To avoid any such confusion I am very careful about linking client accounts and my personal accounts to the same twitter client. I have opted to use twitter’s very own android app to manage clients and Hootsuite for my own tweeting!

Billy No-Mates

Facebook is similar and potentially more problematic. Using the platform as we do in several guises for various clients it would be difficult to use our normal public profiles to manage various profesional brand pages, instead we create separate professional identities to manage them. I masquerade online as a professional billy no-mates, but one that has still got his job.

That Google+ immediately solves these issues is a huge boon and furthermore demonstrates that the search giant has privacy at its core; or as a cynic might claim, realises that privacy is the key to users and therefore revenue. I’ve been trialling circles for over three weeks now and i’m really taken by the service and enthusiastic about the introduction of business accounts.

Rio Ferdinand: The UK’s foremost celebrity digital-evangelist?

fraser — Wed, 25 May 2011 08:28:18 +0000

Retweet

Is Rio Ferdinand the UK’s Ashton Kutcher? We know he’s got an app, it probably won’t be long ’til he gets a twitter client to match @aplusk

Whether it’s for Manchester United gossip, a mention in his ‘#ff aka follow ferdy’, a chance to win a free meal at his restaurant or a signed shirt giveaway I imagine he is the sole reason that thousands of people have signed up to Twitter.

Rio, @rioferdy5, is also credited with encouraging many of his Manchester United team mates, past and present, to sign up to the micro-blogging service and this has unquestionably generated headline news. A 2-hour appearance on Twitter from Darren Gibson, the headline-hitting Rooney saga (he offered out a fan) or the put downs of Piers Morgan and fellow footballer Robbie Savage.

I realise many of those in the creative industries will lament trivial gossip or footballers and ‘the like’ being on Twitter but I believe Rio’s account is a good example for other mainstream celebs to follow. He isn’t afraid to give his opinion, which is refreshing in a media-wary football landscape, encourages debate, and supports the United youth team.

Let’s hope that he ignores Sir Alex Ferguson’s advice and doesn’t go to a library and read a book instead!

——————update—————–

Perhaps I jinxed him but Rio has made a faux-pas to rival Wayne Rooney’s fan threat by sending a threatening message to a journalist! Oliver Holt, the Daily Mirro’s chief sports writer decalred that he received a furious meesage from Rio Ferdinand following criticism of him on Twitter.

I think it’s time I found myself a new role model in Twitter, Wayne Rooney?

Tweet and be damned

Jennifer O'Grady — Mon, 09 May 2011 09:57:58 +0000

Retweet

Last week, agency friend Steve Kuncewicz, IP lawyer at Gateley ran a workshop for clients and staff about the impact of the ASA on online content. Today, he shares with us his thoughts on Twitter and the Super Injunction.

In the latest twist to the ongoing and very public row over whether or not celebrities should be able to obtain so-called “Superinjunctions” to restrain the press from reporting on details of their private lives, a Twitter User has apparently posted details of the parties involved in six superinjunctions over the course of the weekend.

The Twitter Account “@injunctionsuper” was set up in the name of “Billy Jones” on 8 May and has only posted six updates, but is already being followed by nearly 23,000 people. Some of the celebrities named, including socialite Jemima Khan, who is alleged to have obtained a superinjunction to stop details of her affair with a well-known TV presenter going public, have already gone on record to deny having obtained the Court Order, but this doesn’t appear to be doing anything to stop the online rumour mill.

Superinjunctions have never been far away from the news over the last few weeks even though they have had to fight for headlines with coverage of the Royal Wedding and the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Andrew Marr was the most recent public figure to admit that he had obtained a “Superinjunction” in 2008 to protect his family’s privacy by suppressing reports of his affair with a fellow journalist, and Twitter has been flooded with rumours after glamour model and Celebrity Big Brother winner Imogen Thomas won the right in the High Court to protect the anonymity of a premier league footballer with whom she was alleged to have had an affair. Many members of the Twitterati already have a very good idea of who he is, and @injunctionsuper claims to have removed all doubt over the course of the past 24 hours.

These cases, along with David Cameron’s recent public “unease” over Judges creating “a sort of privacy law whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it” and the recent decision by Mr. Justice Eady in OPQ v BJM that saw him issue a “Contra Mundum” injunction enforceable worldwide and in perpetuity to prevent the publication of ‘intimate photographs’ of a married public figure after a woman tried to sell them for a ‘large sum of money’ have reignited debate over how far the UK’s developing privacy law should be able to restrict freedom of the press.

There are, as always, two sides to this argument – on the one hand, celebrities are increasingly turning to the law of privacy to suppress negative coverage, severely limiting the freedom of the press and depriving the public of information about which they may feel they have a ‘right to know.’

On the other, the press are also increasingly running stories which have nothing to do with ‘the public interest’ to fill column inches in an environment where the Press Complaints Commission is seen as largely powerless to take any real action to compensate a victim once a controversial story has been run. The recent “phone hacking” scandal and public apology from News International for their unlawful surveillance of several high-profile figures has shown how far the press may be willing to go to obtain a scoop.

Privacy law reached its high watermark (so far) in the now-infamous battle between Max Mosley and the News of the World in 2008 over allegations of Mosley’s involvement in a ‘Nazi orgy’ and the leaking of a video of the event online. Mosley was successful, winning damages of around £60,000 and setting out the basic ‘road map’ to the new approach to privacy law following the coming into force of the Human Rights Act in 2000.

The Human Rights Act brought the European Convention on Human Rights into English law and requires the court to take its provisions into account wherever possible. In privacy cases, the court must consider whether or not there was a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ in the information in question which can be protected by the Claimant’s Article 8 right to respect for private and family life (dependent in many cases upon whether or not the Claimant courted publicity) and then perform a ‘balancing act’ with the Press’ Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

The most important consideration in this balancing act is usually whether or not the information in question can be justifiably disclosed in the public interest. This does not cover information which is simply ‘interesting to the public’ and in Mosley’s case Justice Eady made the point that a publication which reveals sensitive information for the sake of ‘titillation’ or satisfying public curiosity can never be justified. In his opinion, ‘the sex life of any individual is essentially their own business.’

Even when freedom of expression sees the balancing act come down in the press’ favour, for example to expose illegal activity, to avoid the public being misled or to contribute to a genuine public debate, his will not allow the publication of ‘every gory detail’ and in particular, stories involving the sex lives of those in the public eye will normally be much harder to justify.

Nevertheless, the start of 2010 saw then-England captain John Terry at the centre of the privacy law debate after obtaining a ‘superinjunction’ banning any reporting of his alleged extramarital affair with lingerie model Vanessa Perroncel as well as any reference to the fact that the injunction itself even existed. The decision in Terry’s case came amidst increasing criticism of what was described as a ‘back door privacy law,’ and the ‘superinjunction’ was overturned after Mr. Justice Tugendhat found it to be unnecessary – the information which it covered was already relatively widely known within the sport, and in his opinion, Terry applied for the injunction more to protect his commercial interests and sponsorship deals rather than his private life.

If a claimant becomes aware of impending negative press attention and has a very strong case in either defamation or privacy against the publisher for which an award of damages would never truly compensate them if the details became public, then an, injunction may well be the only realistic option. They are not easy to obtain, ‘superinjunctions’ even less so, and are only granted in cases where allowing the publication to go ahead will cause more harm to the claimant than restraining it would do to the newspaper.

However, an injunction or ‘superinjunction’ may never truly kill a story. In December 2009, Tiger Woods obtained an injunction against the reporting of further details of his private life being disclosed in the British press in the wake of his very public fall from grace. However, much of the information and accusations in question were already available on a number of US websites accessible from the UK, leaving many commentators wondering what the point was.

Similar points have been made in relation to the OPQ Case – an injunction was made which is enforceable against the entire world and in perpetuity. This kind of order is at the absolute extremity of the Court’s jurisdiction and was granted on the basis that publication of the information protected by the order could have a very serious effect on the mental health of the Claimant and his family.

In the world of real-time commentary through social media, injunctions may be very easily undermined by the information to which they relate already being in the public domain in one form or another, as commodities broker Trafigura, Take That star Howard Donald, golfer Colin Montgomerie and Imogen Thomas have found out over the course of the last 18 months. It was for this reason that the BBC’s attempt to keep the identity of the Stig secret through an injunction failed – his real name was being widely referred to on the internet and in accounts filed at Companies House.

However, what many appear to be forgetting is what the practical effect of an order granting a superinjunction actually is. The Order will usually contain a penal notice which states very clearly that not only will the Respondents be in breach and potentially guilty of contempt if they reveal any details of the injunction, but so will any third party who is not a respondent in the proceedings but is aware of the injunction and then goes on to leak its details.

This will cover any comments made on social networks and despite what some commentators are saying this morning, anyone who publishes details on a social networking platform such as Twitter is not immune from the consequences of what they post.

“Billy Jones” may think that he is able to hide behind a false user name, but if he has posted any information on genuine superinjunctions then there is nothing to stop anyone who has obtained one applying for an order from the Court to reveal their identity, pursuing them for a breach of privacy and then applying to the Court to have them committed for contempt after breaching the terms of the Order itself.

In practical terms, the Celebrities and Public Figures involved will probably not want to spend even more in legal fees pursuing every user of Twitter – and there are a lot of them – who have repeated the rumoured details of the various superinjunctions in force. The Court, however, may respond much more favourably to contempt proceedings, especially after a recent case which saw two national newspapers convicted of contempt after posting photos of the defendant in a murder trial posing with a knife on the morning of the hearing.

Twitter as a platform is shielded from proceedings being taken against them if they immediately remove tweets which contain unlawful material when notified and take no action to vet the content of any such posts – this lack of editorial control is not only part of their business model (they could not feasibly check every tweet to ensure that it doesn’t cause a problem) but key to their defence as a “mere conduit” which makes material available over the internet but has no control over the content itself under the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002.

The Courts will now have no choice but to really get to grips with the practical issues which social media commentary creates in ongoing proceedings, especially those which are intended to remain secret. The last few years have seen criminal cases involving obscenity in blogs, harassment and cyber-bullying through Facebook and the relatively new offence of misuse of a public electronic communications network – the notorious “Twitter Joke Trial”.

Each of these cases is a salutary lesson that although social network users can hide their presence through false profiles and may not be worth pursuing if they simply wouldn’t be able to pay damages or costs in a civil claim, they are not immune from sanction and it’s probably only a matter of time before the Twitterati are held accountable for the content which they post.

As much as @Injunctionsuper’s tweets may be interesting to the public rather than in the public interest, they may soon become very interesting to the Courts.

To keep up to date of the changes in law surrounding social media, check out his blog. If you’d like more details on future seminars, please email jennifer@democracypr.com. NB: places are limited.

Technology vs the traditionalists

maxine — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:30:42 +0000

Retweet

Julia Donaldson, author of the bestselling children’s book ‘The Gruffalo’ explained in an interview with The Guardian over the weekend, how she has refused permission for her award winning title to be published as an eBook, citing that if every publication was available electronically this would add to the decline of ‘real books’.

Now I could sit here and give you are number of positive arguments about how the ebook is the next big thing (there are certainly some fans in this office) etc but really, there is one overriding issue.

Liz Thomson, editor of the website BookBrunch was also quoted “There’s a lot of stuff at the moment that we’re doing because we can. It’s a question of whether you can really add value to the story”. What she says here rings true, and highlights the importance of assessing what media is right for not only books, but indeed any brand/product/service, and not necessarily jumping on the bandwagon because everyone else is doing it.

Social/digital media IS for everyone, but choosing the right platform is fundamental, and some will deliver better than others depending on what message you are trying to get across. Essentially it should not be seen as a replacement, but as an enhancement working in harmony with more traditional communications.

Spotify valuation is music to my ears

fraser — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:07:46 +0000

Retweet

Spotify has recently been valued at $1bn following a recent drive for investment and for me it brings some sanity to the current digital media market that has seen big social media sites receive valuations that seem to be based on guesswork alone.

Happily Spotify bucks this trend as it seems to be well monetized. Guaranteeing no advertising ‘wastage’ and offering a unique mix of audio and visual formats are huge revenue-generating tools. Spotify also offer their premium service which allows users to avoid ads thereby generating money from people wishing to avoid ads they generate money from!

Now while I’m a complete convert to twitter’s microblogging service I don’t understand where the revenue is! Yes there’s a huge reach, but will Promoted Tweets bring in the dough? Does twitter have a viable business model to explain its recent valuation of £6bn on this year’s predicted sales of just £67m?

Perhaps I shouldn’t worry and just thank my lucky stars that there are seemingly plenty of backers willing to pay big money.

Here’s a video that asks a similar question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZRd-xX5zk0A (check out the rise of Groupon)

Maybe you disagree? I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject so if you can show me the light then I welcome your comments below, but beware-i’m charging 10p per comment!

Twitter rap for football star

fraser — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:30:00 +0000

Retweet

The FA have handed out their first charge over the use of twitter by a footballer. Disgruntled Liverpool player, Ryan Babel, tweeted a picture of Howard Webb the referee, who presided somewhat controversially over the FA Cup tie, wearing a Manchester United shirt following his team’s loss to the Red Devils.

What the incident demonstrates is the Football Association’s fear of twitter. The twittersphere was awash with posts about Howard Webb’s performance mostly hashtagged ‘MBE’, Manchester’s Best Employee, so Ryan Babel was merely echoing sentiments. I think that the FA has missed a trick; football stars recently have caused upset, distrust and hate in equal measure with news of affairs, greed and selfishness, footballers on the micro-blogging service remain the one accessible and likeable link between the paying fans and the players on the pitch. Rather than charge Babel they should have lauded him for great photoshop skills and let him off with a warning.

Robbie Savage and Rio Ferdinand present an interesting insight to a footballer’s life. Jokes and banter are crucial to keeping fans onside following a string of bad publicity stories for former favourites like Wayne Rooney and John Terry and poor performances by England. Lay out some guidelines by all means but don’t frighten stars into signing-off twitter.

Cash for tweets

Jennifer O'Grady — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:04:10 +0000

Retweet

News today has broken that the OFT is launching an investigation into the shady practice of celebs endorsing products on twitter in exchange for cash.

Celebrity endorsement is nothing new in the world of PR. Over the years I’ve worked with a host of celebrities. From Atomic Kitten on the launch of Carmen Girls (secured front page of The Sun) to George Forman and his lean mean grilling machine (made everywhere). PRs, the media and the general public understand that a celeb can be all it takes to get the column inches they need or onto the right sofa.

The problem is – the rules of twitter are different. Followers of celebrities flocked to the medium to get some one on one time with their fave celeb. Twitter is direct, it cuts through the media bullshit and allows the general public to get to know the ‘real’ personality, what they like/don’t like, what turns them on/gets them cross.

When we find out that they’re being paid to sell us stuff – we feel cheated.

Although it could be argued that the general public should wise up to the fact their favoured celeb is taking cash for 140 character advertising messages, I agree with the OFT, full disclosure is needed. If this means flagging the message with ‘ad’ or ‘spon’, then so be it.

Quora – the next big thing?

fraser — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:53:31 +0000

Retweet

Described by the founders as, ‘A continually improving collection of questions and answers created, edited, and organized by everyone who uses it’. The website seems to be a cross between twitter and Wikipedia with the added bonus of running several useful features that facilitate collaboration such as being able to ask a follower to answer a question, tagging any question with topics-redirecting it to a range of users, and posting the question to your twitter/Facebook account.

But what use is it for me? From a work point of view, with a little bit of luck I might be able to get some useful insight from useful people; currently it’s the hugely influential ‘tech’ people that are asking and answering the questions, but as the community grows the timelines and topics will become increasingly congested- and I’d be better off putting my message in a bottle and throwing it into the sea.

My followers on Quora are a subset of my twitter followers, so i’m working in ever decreasing circles. Quora affords me less engagement and a smaller audience than twitter and makes a voyeur of me. The one big advantage is following topics and reading the insight of the high and mighty, i’ll just sit tight and wait until they ask for my input.

Regardless of its future Quora is a great platform for discussion and will prove to be a hotbed of ideas. Twitter for all its interactivity and brilliance doesn’t provide for prolonged multi-user discussion so with the speed that these sites develop and evolve it’ll undoubtedly be an exciting few weeks, days(!) as it finds its place on the social media landscape.