Further to my previous post regarding the BBC's swipe at Murdoch (something strangely missed by the media), I now read that News Corp (and not just them) is meeting with Microsoft, presumably to put together some deal that delivers paid-for content through Bing.
As Rory C-J from the BBC rightly says, this will really give journalists the opportunity to see how much people value their work. Actually it is the other way round, it will help people put a value on how much they want to be informed and how much they care on the reliability of data.
Google wants to map the world's information intelligently. Firstly it wanted to reference it (search), now it wants to connect it (discover). When Google Dashboard was announced, I saw many horrified faces from people realising their entire life's history of search could be accessed and looked at. I think Google went a step too far with this and could ultimately impact its brand credibility and ability to 'win' this fight.
People are uncomfortable knowing that a company knows more about themselves than they do. It's one thing for Tesco to apply this to a narrow field of life, such as shopping (personally I don't have a card, but if Tesco decides that my regular wine choice could be well matched with a new cheese, that's useful information), but to apply it to all forms (which now operate through the Internet) is the privatisation of big brother.
So we have some strange bedfellows in this battle. On the one side, the 2 big proponents of the 'free': the BBC and Google and on the other, the proponents of 'paid-for': Microsoft and News Corp (publishers).
Clearly making predictions is merely a way of highlighting ignorance, but I'll have a go. The answer does not lie in whether people will pay in as much as how they will pay. It is the payment model that is crucial. I might say that about £250 per year is about right for information from the media, but I don't want to make 1000 transactions for it. I make very few 'information only' transactions, but buy it along with other shopping. This is a cultural shift.
People will pay for reliable and up-to-date information, how many and how much is unknown. But to find that answer, we need the business model and the technology. I see a gap for an intermediate start-up to smooth the gap between provider and purchaser, a kind of online shopping mall for information where you hold the equivalent of a 'John Lewis' card and can pay for a multitude of things on the card, but only make monthly transactions.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Friday, 20 November 2009
BBC Embraces SEO, a swipe at Murdoch? (Katie Price; Thierry Henry)
I see today that the BBC has changed it's headline and web address policy to improve its SEO. The blog from Steve Hermann explains that many people come to the BBC through 3rd parties - no mention of Google, of course, but it does mention Twitter, RSS and personal recommendations.
That makes no sense. The story is about SEO, so the above list is nonsensical and has no relevance in this piece. Changing the policy is just about search engines. Now, why might the BBC want to place its news higher up a google search?
The Murcochs (James and Rupert) have taken swipes at the BBC and 'free content' recently and News Int is considering de-tagging its content from Google. Cue BBC shake up to improve SEO.
It's probably a good thing (and whilst its at it, it can sort out its own search engine) and the bbc has probably relied too much on recommendations and loyal visitors to the site.
However, I don't think it will substantially change anything, that is unless News Int does 'ungoogle' itself and we are ramping up for a fantastic war of the 'free' vs. the 'paid for'. One which I'm sure the Murdoch's want in order to destabilise the BBC, but it is certainly interesting that the BBC seems to be fronting up.
You can read the Blog from Steve Herrmann here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/changing_headlines.html
Of course, there is no Katie or Thierry element to this piece, just hoping to maximise my SEO in the style of 3am.co.uk
That makes no sense. The story is about SEO, so the above list is nonsensical and has no relevance in this piece. Changing the policy is just about search engines. Now, why might the BBC want to place its news higher up a google search?
The Murcochs (James and Rupert) have taken swipes at the BBC and 'free content' recently and News Int is considering de-tagging its content from Google. Cue BBC shake up to improve SEO.
It's probably a good thing (and whilst its at it, it can sort out its own search engine) and the bbc has probably relied too much on recommendations and loyal visitors to the site.
However, I don't think it will substantially change anything, that is unless News Int does 'ungoogle' itself and we are ramping up for a fantastic war of the 'free' vs. the 'paid for'. One which I'm sure the Murdoch's want in order to destabilise the BBC, but it is certainly interesting that the BBC seems to be fronting up.
You can read the Blog from Steve Herrmann here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/changing_headlines.html
Of course, there is no Katie or Thierry element to this piece, just hoping to maximise my SEO in the style of 3am.co.uk
Friday, 28 August 2009
Please don't print me, or write me even
I have long been intrinsically uncomfortable with people having in ones e-mail signature: "please consider the environment, please don't print" - often plus a green image of a tree.
It has nothing to do with the intention (although, the effectiveness of having it is questionable), rather the cost to the environment of adding that small message onto every single e-mail.
What has made me bring this up now is having just read a blog by a technology journalist, Cliff Saran, complaining about receiving unsolicited 7MB attachments (an entirely fair complaint). His main point, idiotic PRs aside, is: "[he now] will have to store that 7 Mbyte of attachments for several years, on discs and tapes, which consume electricity, need constant upgrading and require greater amounts of storage space. There is an environmental impact." See: www.computerweekly.com/blogs/it-fud-blog/
Now I once worked out that the additional ‘environmental message’ is around 10 bytes. Apparently in 2oo8, around 210 billion e-mails were sent each day. Of course 70% was considered spam - so that is 63 billion e-mails not spam. Let's say that only 1% of e-mails carry the message, therefore that equates to around 630 million - which (taking the 10 bytes figure) amounts to 6.3 extra GBs per day, or 2, 299GB per annum.
Now I'm unable to calculate what that impact is on the environment, or what impact the actual message carries to mitigate any negative impact. But I know that I print things off because I need to - either to proof read (I simply cannot do it on screen) or because I need that info away from a computer and can't read it on a mobile device.
Regardless of what can and can't be done for the environment, it seems to me that people who believe that, to coin a phrase: "every little helps" are doing quite simply the opposite. It was a trend for a while, but it's time must have come and there are better and more efficient ways of monitoring printing and waste.
It has nothing to do with the intention (although, the effectiveness of having it is questionable), rather the cost to the environment of adding that small message onto every single e-mail.
What has made me bring this up now is having just read a blog by a technology journalist, Cliff Saran, complaining about receiving unsolicited 7MB attachments (an entirely fair complaint). His main point, idiotic PRs aside, is: "[he now] will have to store that 7 Mbyte of attachments for several years, on discs and tapes, which consume electricity, need constant upgrading and require greater amounts of storage space. There is an environmental impact." See: www.computerweekly.com/blogs/it-fud-blog/
Now I once worked out that the additional ‘environmental message’ is around 10 bytes. Apparently in 2oo8, around 210 billion e-mails were sent each day. Of course 70% was considered spam - so that is 63 billion e-mails not spam. Let's say that only 1% of e-mails carry the message, therefore that equates to around 630 million - which (taking the 10 bytes figure) amounts to 6.3 extra GBs per day, or 2, 299GB per annum.
Now I'm unable to calculate what that impact is on the environment, or what impact the actual message carries to mitigate any negative impact. But I know that I print things off because I need to - either to proof read (I simply cannot do it on screen) or because I need that info away from a computer and can't read it on a mobile device.
Regardless of what can and can't be done for the environment, it seems to me that people who believe that, to coin a phrase: "every little helps" are doing quite simply the opposite. It was a trend for a while, but it's time must have come and there are better and more efficient ways of monitoring printing and waste.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Wagamama - what am I missing?
I went to Wagamama for probably the 3rd time this weekend and yet again was completely confused as to why anyone would ever want to eat there. The confusion grows even more when you consider how highly people speak of it. Now I must be missing something, but here I want to outline why I am not a fan and if there is something that I'm missing, I'd love to hear it. I should point out that I went there as an act of love. My girlfriend loves it and knows I am not a fan, but as it was her birthday recently, it was only fair that I accompanied her for lunch there. After all, however much I dislike and disapprove, the experience doesn’t kill me or ruin my life, so I can make very occasional exceptions.
Seating - communal eating wasn't fun at school and it is certainly not fun now. I don't eat on busses or tubes, as like most people I think it rude to eat on someone's lap, so why create that environment in a 'restaurant'
Food - it is just not high quality. The chicken is awful/ dry/ large chunks. Almost certainly arrives frozen, probably cheap, battery chickens. The vegetables are raw (nothing wrong with this, just a fact), the sauces are sugary and don't taste freshly made.
Portions - the portions are just ridiculous. I am a six foot 1 male who enjoys his food, but I do not want to eat a whole main course (following no starter or breakfast) for lunch. The portion sizes are massive. The corporate motto is positive eating/ positive living. After eating lunch there, not much positive will happen as you melt into a sofa completely unable to move.
Ordering - the writing on the 'paper' on the table is a gimmick and an unpleasant and unnecessary one at that. It is not difficult to ask who ordered what and give it to them - why lean over me and scribble on the table?
Food arrival - the single biggest crime. Eating out is nearly always a social activity and the table lay out at Wagamama suggests that too. So why does the food arrive separately. Why would I want to go to dinner/ lunch with a friend/ lover and watch them eat or visa versa? How are the dynamics of conversation supposed to work when one person is eating and the other not - taking turns with soliloquies.
Price - for the poor food, the school lay-out, the clumsy service, the lack of a need to be able to speak or manage the speed you cook 2 different dishes, it is NOT cheap. Quite frankly, to have to compromise on all the above things should result in the food being cheaper than McDonald's, but it's not. It's quickly and easily in the £15 a head territory.
As I say, I find it amazing that this idea even made it into bricks and mortar, let alone survive and thrive to the point that people regularly go there. It’s a tragedy for food and manners and probably not that great on delivering positive ‘stuff’ as claimed.
I’m not particularly trying to convert fans of Wagamama to my way of thinking, but want to make it clear why I just don’t get it.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Do PR agencies do 'Social Media'
As a tech specialist in PR, 2 things seem to irk me every week.
Firstly is the assumption by colleagues and potential clients that any strategy that includes 'digital media' (or whatever it is called, you'll see I interchange a lot on this), should go to the technology specialist area.
What that means is that if a pharmaceutical company is looking to do an 'internet media' type campaign, it gets referred to me and (not always) the healthcare team. Specialisms usually (and should) refer to audiences, rather than 'channels' (and I will get to channels in a bit), yet the whole world, PR agencies, in-house departments, recruiters and journalists far too frequently confuse the two. My technology specialism means I understand the industry, the characters and how to develop a message of interest and how to get it to the relevant people (through tech, biz and vertical press/journalists/ bloggers). That's PR at its very core.
The other thing that seems to drive me mad is the constant debate about whether an agency has a 'Social Media Capability' or SMC as I'll now call it. Before SMC evolved, grew and took over the world like swine flu, I had never been asked in all my time if I had 'Print Media Capabilities' (PMC) or Broadcast Media Capabilities (BMC). Social Media doesn't really help define a 'skill-set' - if it encompasses youtube, twitter, blogging and website, these are all very different, some of which are relevant for B2C campaigns and some only for B2B campaigns.
SMC or SM is just a channel and should really only be called Internet Media (IM). So do you hire a ‘channel’ expert or an ‘audience’ expert or to put it another way, as a Retail company should you hire an expert on ‘Social Media’ or an expert on ‘the Retail industry’?
Any half decent PR will have experience in all channels, for sure, the PR will use some more than others, but will have a broad list of tools (or channels) to use. A ‘channel’ expert understands how to use a channel, and will have a deep understanding of what can be done in SM. They will however, not understand your business or your industry. They will not be able to produce messaging and content appropriate for your business to go public with (although, of course they’ll say that they can).
I would favour an audience, rather than channel expert. PR’s have for years used professional photographers, press release distribution services, design agencies, video specialists where the need to have one exceeds the capabilities available within a PR agency. Social Media is mostly executable within any decent PR agency and if the needs of the client (in order to reach its audiences) exceed the capabilities within the agency (and this is likely to be technical only), then it can bring in a specialist.
Clients should hire PR agencies to develop and execute a strategy and campaign – that is their expertise. But also, PRs need to articulate SM faithfully and to stop driving a confusing frenzy for clients that they 'have to do social media' and around agencies that you 'have to have a SM department'.
We need to go back to our core of helping companies communicate with their stakeholders.
The thing about most PR campaigns that I read about, see or am asked to conduct is that the core purpose is all too often lost. PR campaigns are normally designed to support a marketing campaign which is normally supposed to drive sales, brand awareness or knowledge. For any of these three, the key is the audience, and for the PR the question is who are they and how can we reach them? PR is the skill set best placed to help any company set this strategy in place and execute on it. For a client, the question is really, which agency understands me, my industry and my target audience the best. The rest is just nuts and bolts.
Firstly is the assumption by colleagues and potential clients that any strategy that includes 'digital media' (or whatever it is called, you'll see I interchange a lot on this), should go to the technology specialist area.
What that means is that if a pharmaceutical company is looking to do an 'internet media' type campaign, it gets referred to me and (not always) the healthcare team. Specialisms usually (and should) refer to audiences, rather than 'channels' (and I will get to channels in a bit), yet the whole world, PR agencies, in-house departments, recruiters and journalists far too frequently confuse the two. My technology specialism means I understand the industry, the characters and how to develop a message of interest and how to get it to the relevant people (through tech, biz and vertical press/journalists/ bloggers). That's PR at its very core.
The other thing that seems to drive me mad is the constant debate about whether an agency has a 'Social Media Capability' or SMC as I'll now call it. Before SMC evolved, grew and took over the world like swine flu, I had never been asked in all my time if I had 'Print Media Capabilities' (PMC) or Broadcast Media Capabilities (BMC). Social Media doesn't really help define a 'skill-set' - if it encompasses youtube, twitter, blogging and website, these are all very different, some of which are relevant for B2C campaigns and some only for B2B campaigns.
SMC or SM is just a channel and should really only be called Internet Media (IM). So do you hire a ‘channel’ expert or an ‘audience’ expert or to put it another way, as a Retail company should you hire an expert on ‘Social Media’ or an expert on ‘the Retail industry’?
Any half decent PR will have experience in all channels, for sure, the PR will use some more than others, but will have a broad list of tools (or channels) to use. A ‘channel’ expert understands how to use a channel, and will have a deep understanding of what can be done in SM. They will however, not understand your business or your industry. They will not be able to produce messaging and content appropriate for your business to go public with (although, of course they’ll say that they can).
I would favour an audience, rather than channel expert. PR’s have for years used professional photographers, press release distribution services, design agencies, video specialists where the need to have one exceeds the capabilities available within a PR agency. Social Media is mostly executable within any decent PR agency and if the needs of the client (in order to reach its audiences) exceed the capabilities within the agency (and this is likely to be technical only), then it can bring in a specialist.
Clients should hire PR agencies to develop and execute a strategy and campaign – that is their expertise. But also, PRs need to articulate SM faithfully and to stop driving a confusing frenzy for clients that they 'have to do social media' and around agencies that you 'have to have a SM department'.
We need to go back to our core of helping companies communicate with their stakeholders.
The thing about most PR campaigns that I read about, see or am asked to conduct is that the core purpose is all too often lost. PR campaigns are normally designed to support a marketing campaign which is normally supposed to drive sales, brand awareness or knowledge. For any of these three, the key is the audience, and for the PR the question is who are they and how can we reach them? PR is the skill set best placed to help any company set this strategy in place and execute on it. For a client, the question is really, which agency understands me, my industry and my target audience the best. The rest is just nuts and bolts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
