Blog

To paraphrase someone who once paraphrased Winston Churchill: ‘Never has so much been written, by so many, with so little substance.’

It used to be said that p*rn was ruining the internet (fair call, we have to star that cheeky little ‘o’ just so some of you can read this at work).

In fact, the internet’s real nemesis is truly awful content, often seeded by the least scrupulous SEO companies. I hear if you put enough of them in a room with enough PCs they’ll eventually churn out the complete works of Shakespeare, in LOLspeak……..‘but it’ll rank in the top 10 on Google’.

A quick Google blog search for ‘crisis management’ throws up a first page full of rubbish, with this notable exception.

There’s no need to explain SEO to me. I know how the poor articles got there, why they are there and what function they perform for those who placed them. But not all are anonymous and if you’re going to have your business or brand associated with a blog, there’s just no excuse for it to be so bad.

If you’re going to blog, even if it is just for SEO purposes, at least get someone to write it who doesn’t draft copy that looks like it was transcribed from a broken Speak & Spell and put through Google’s translation service three or four times.

Many SEO companies, bloggers and PR agencies do employ people who write well and there is some amazing, insightful content out there which is improving someone’s web ranking, providing an interesting read and improving a client’s reputation. Unfortunately, it’s still in the minority.

Organisations are producing increasing amounts of their own content. If it is going to be available directly to customers and consumers without going through the ‘filter’ of a newsroom or magazine editor, it has to be good.

Reputational management isn’t just about what others write about you, it starts with what you write about yourself.

Every so often, something occurs which shows why social media has to be integrated with other areas of PR expertise, such as reputation management.

Issues with errant tweeting, as experienced by Vodafone on Friday afternoon, illustrate why so many larger organisations are still as skittish around social media as a Chelsea player taking his wife to a John Terry pool party.

Vodafone typically uses its Twitter account to dispense technical advice and deal with customer service queries so its followers were probably aware that the overly informative Tweet about homosexuals and a desire for ‘large semi-aquatic rodents’ was unlikely to be official corporate policy.

The company responded quickly and admirably, replying to almost every ReTweet of the original message with a personal response explaining: “We weren’t hacked. A severe breach of rules by staff in our building, dealing with that internally. We’re very sorry.”

Simple, honest, apologetic and, most crucially, indicates that Vodafone has a social media policy. It was breached, the same way that email policies can be breached or employees can ignore that rule about not punching colleagues in the face.

The company’s actions simply indicated: ‘No social media crisis here. Move along.’

www.data.gov.uk launched today, which sees the government join – and arguably take a lead in – the ‘open data revolution.’

You can read all about it here and at the site’s own blog.

At time of writing the web site was crashing and no doubt there will be lots of coverage on another Government failure.  However, at its launch there are bound to be glitches and to focus on the negative would be the narrow minded thing to do.  Let’s instead look at something all together more interesting.

What does this mean for the vast majority of UK businesses?  It means that more data than ever is available.   The availability of ‘perfect information’ is one of the key tenets of the free market, so making this content available is arguably going to create efficiencies.

Crucially, third party developers can now create their own applications to process the data.  These are then uploaded onto the site and available to all.  There are already applications available such as this one which looks at house prices.

From a PR and marketing perspective there are two immediately interesting considerations:

• Does the ability to build applications for clients present a commercial opportunity?  For example, agencies could build an augmented reality tourism guide for UK cities, which might be ideal for hotels, or leisure sector organisations?  Consultancies might choose to create an ‘economic report’ application, for accountancy firms or banking clients.  There are endless options here for consultancies to consider.

• Is the site a risk for the Government that could backfire?  For example, how will the Government be able to manage the development of third party applications?  How long will it be until, say, the Conservative party build an application which turns the Government’s own data on itself?  We have already seen The Guardian use crowd sourcing to examine MPs expenses and this sort of content will be much easier to create thanks to this website.  Will the Government fall on its sword?  Or, will a mischievous anarchist group or a terrorist organisation build applications which can be used against the state.  Imagine the negative headlines!

The latter point, of course, is the product of an over fertile imagination and one would think that the Government has already weighed up the risks.

Launching the site is a brave move and let’s hope that it proves to be successful.  The Office of National Statistics’ website was always slow and clunky to interrogate.  It helped if users had a grasp of advanced statistics, to really make the data work for you.

Now, via the third party applications, access to data should be a lot easier.

‘Homeworking’ just hit a bit of a benchmark throughout the region.

Britain doesn’t do extreme weather very well and, unless you really like risk, using a car wasn’t a great choice in the worst snow the North West has seen for decades. First thing this morning, public transport websites were crashing faster than a philandering golfer.

Like many Manchester PR agencies, Citypress employs a number of people who live in the city centre. Without the need to consult confusing fake social media sites for travel information, the biggest barrier to those commuting on foot was trying to avoid dozens of people shuffling through the slippery conditions, looking at their feet while shouting ‘Yeah, it’s really snowing!’ into a ‘phone.

In the suburbs it’s safe to say that the email subject line ‘working from home’ was quite popular. A high percentage of employees in the region put the kettle on and took their technological connectivity for granted, answering emails with one thumb while stirring their tea.

At the beginning of the last decade, not being at your desk meant more disruption. Putting in calls to clients, ‘getting stuff in your book’ and writing press releases – on a PC if you were one of the 30 per cent of households sporting a home computer 10 years ago (compared to almost 80 per cent at the end of the ‘noughties’).*

You would even have been able to email your work to the office via dial-up if you were among the 10 per cent of early adopters who had an internet connection. Even then, sending anything larger than a web document took hours, a stark contrast to this morning when everyone on Twitter had posted a picture of their road/car/balcony/driveway by 8am.

None of these things are a modern concern for the snowed in PR person. ‘Working from home’ is such a seamless transition that we barely think about what impact, if any, it will have on our ability to do our jobs or for clients to contact us. Direct telephone lines re-routed, smartphones in hand, you don’t really even need a desk.

Of course this is all totally relevant if you work for a PR agency in Manchester and absolutely no use at all if you’re a bus driver.

*Office for National Statistics

I’m loath to second guess Rupert Murdoch.

It’s easy to dismiss his recent strop over Google and YouTube as the ramblings of a 78-year-old media mogul woefully out of touch with the digital age.

But this is a man worth billions, one who successfully monetised pay per view football when many doubted it would work and, despite the apparent failure of his $580 MySpace acquisition, he must have a genius long term strategy.

Surely?

He says he is in favour of the micro payments route – online pence removed from your digital purse for reading articles from The Times, The Sun, The News of the World and hundreds of other titles in his empire.

But micro-payments is the model publishers should have introduced 10 years ago, before they gave away all their content for free and began price wars and DVD cover offers which further eroded our loyalty to one print newspaper yet ensured that we had a copy of Where Eagles Dare to stick on while we sleep off our Sunday roast.

Although the music industry was slow and litigious in its response to online file sharing, there are now pay models, such as iTunes, which work to a degree. There will always be piracy.

And that is what Murdoch claims he is dealing with….

Piracy – outright theft of News Corp content.

Except Google isn’t stealing his content, it is aggregating it, sharing it. To read the NOTW’s latest revelation that there is an X Factor crisis I still have to land on a News Corp site, where the publisher can then ask for my payment.

So did we just ‘steal’ that content or direct you to it?

Murdoch may as well ask WH Smith to tell customers not to glance at a print edition of The Sun if they aren’t going to buy it. Google, like the newsagents’ shelf, is the shop window for his product.

Bloggers and Twitter users are potential street sellers, shouting out headlines to an online audience.

Yet Murdoch is still talking about removing News Corp titles from Google AFTER any pay walls are in place.

There seems to be absolutely no logic to that.

Unless being anti-Google as well as anti-BBC is Murdoch having fun and generating global PR to further his long term aim of using new best mate David Cameron (if elected) to slash BBC budgets and push for fresh online regulation to protect his content.

Because for micro-payments to really work, all Murdoch’s rivals need to follow suit, and his online ‘competition’ is hard to define and counteract with new legislation. Google is the key. If he can force it to the table to account for unproven crimes then he can get the biggest online player in a defensive position over regulation.

For instance, Murdoch openly hates the BBC for its ability to launch new digital ventures such as iPlayer and give away its content without the commercial pressures faced by publishers who rely on advertising.

But remove the BBC from the equation and you still have millions of online consumers who will happily take similar free news and gossip to that found in a News Corp title from any number of other sites or blogs. Even proposed ‘paid for’ content from a columnist such as Jeremy Clarkson or a chequebook exclusive will hit someone’s blog soon enough.

And Murdoch knows this. He needs to create a villain in the all powerful Google because the BBC, whatever faults it may have, is still much loved in the UK – kicking it too hard is like repeatedly punching Bruce Forsyth in the face.

David Cameron should be nervous. Murdoch’s sharks are tearing their last pounds of flesh from Gordon Brown and heading his way.

They’ll expect to be fed.

You may be familiar with the concept of the ‘so bad it’s good’ movie.

I don’t want to cast aspersions on what, for many, may be favourite films, but Keanu Reeves and the late Patrick Swayze are two of the genre’s key actors, making Point Break the benchmark film. This is fact.

But I’m not sure it works as a marketing ploy, even when the explosion in sharing digital content allows both good and bad campaigns to make an impact.

Whereas many truly awful campaigns once died on the daytime TV circuit, today’s worst examples are emailed, Tweeted or have Facebook groups dedicated to mocking them.

One recent example is so bad that it’s tempting to dismiss it as a spoof. Unfortunately it’s not. The Windows 7 ‘launch parties’ video on YouTube is over six minutes of marketing so knuckle-bitingly cringeworthy that I challenge you to get to the end.

The official version has had nearly one million views but adding comments has wisely been disabled. Remarks below this unofficial version reveal why.

While Apple continues to redefine cool with its products and marketing, Microsoft has chosen to promote one of its core launches with a cheap looking campaign seemingly devised by a team of Apprentice hopefuls. I can hear Alan Sugar now.

As a contrast, look what this group of French Canadian students produced to promote their university in Montreal. Cheap, effective, over a million views.

It isn’t even an original idea. Just a good one, well executed.

Apps are a hot topic for marketers, fuelled by the growth of the iPhone and Apple’s classically smug – and now banned – app-led advertising campaign.

As a result there is much debate about the worth of apps to brands and whether they should aim to entertain or actually provide some lasting value.

There’s now sufficient marketing budget being directed at apps to fund the emergence of specialist agencies (one US specialist grandly promises to help brands focus “on contextually-relevant targeted media and integrated sponsorship programs that encourage consumer engagement with brands” Mmm!)

However, beneath the hype there’s a genuine opportunity for brands. In a rapidly developing digital culture, apps that offer genuine value (whether that’s a useful tool or a short-lived prank for the office joker) are finding their way into people’s pockets.

With this much-prized goal up for grabs the battle of branded apps is likely to be fiercely contested. All it takes is the right idea.