Gary Andrews

I now own the latest Cornershop album, Cornershop and the Double O Groove Of. I wasn’t necessarily planning on buying it until an unexpected intervention.

I’d listened to the album a couple of times on Spotify and thought it really rather lovely. I Tweeted my thoughts on the album and made a mental note to possibly purchase a copy if I saw it for a decent price.

A few hours later, I had a retweet from Tjinder Singh from Cornershop, along with a quick thank you.

We don’t follow each other, so he must have been keeping an eye out for mentions of the band. I’ve never been personally thanked by a relatively well-known musician for complementing their music before, and that kind of tipped me towards buying the album.

As with most things Internet-related, it got me thinking about social media and communities.

One assumption I often come across with managing your online social media areas is that you have to use it to fight PR battles and crises, or to use them to launch whizz-bang promotions that entice new followers.

This isn’t to say this is a wrong attitude – these are both very valid and necessary uses for a brand’s social media.

But a good community manager also knows the value in the little things that show the large swathes of often silent fans they’re appreciated.

All community managers will have a set of vocal fans they’ll often interact with. These are often the brand cheerleaders and can be nurtured.

But it never hurts to say thanks to those who’ll pop onto Facebook and Twitter once to politely say how much they liked something. These are also relationships worth nurturing.

After all, the person who you say thank you to a couple of times or answer a reasonably easy query could be tomorrow’s brand evangelist.

And, yes, the new Cornershop album really is rather good.

written by Gary \\ tags: community management, Cornershop, Tjinder Singh

A new year, a new shiny toy to play with in the shape of Quora, the social question and answer service.

Since Tuesday, Twitter – and Quora – has exploded with hype, counter-hype, naysayers and people somewhere in-between trying to work out if this is the next big thing in social media.

There’s a few interesting points to be made around the bubbles around these services, which I’ll come to in a bit, but to answer the Quora question, my initial thoughts are probably not, but it’s an interesting and potentially very useful site that could gain a reasonable amount of traction.

Taking out the obvious self-publicising answers that appear on the site, the quality of the answers is very high and in-depth and there’s a very knowledgeable crowd on there.

There’s also potential for mainstream media and other companies to use it. For journalism, it seems like an excellent place to gauge opinion and reaction that’s likely to be more considered than, say, Twitter, as well as cultivating potential contacts.

You can also see how this could be useful for specific radio or even TV shows, while it offers good opportunities for brands to enhance their profile if they’re willing to engage with this community.

But – and I could be very wrong here – the strengths of Quora is also probably the reason why it probably won’t go mainstream in the way that Twitter did (and Gigacom also has a few potential pitfalls as well).

Firstly, the more users Quora gets, the greater the potential for the quality of the questions and answers to go down. The voting element adds a safeguard of kind, but if, say, you see the sort of mass adoption in the style of Twitter, then the user base changes.

Secondly, would a mainstream audience necessarily want to become regular Quora users? If there’s a lot of specialist knowledge there, will it discourage the average Twitter user from regular usage, if they just want to socialise?

Unsurprisingly, Quora is also very to-heavy with marketing, technology, PR, media and social media queries, which may put others off. The quality of answers is usually strong, and fascinating, for these topics, but stray away and the level of answers is somewhat hit and miss. Will this put off people who don’t specialise in these areas?

I’ve asked two questions – and followed several others. One was on SEO, which had short, sharp, snappy, useful replies. The other was a question on managerial sackings in football, which I’d hoped would attract a couple of thoughtful responses.

So far, I’ve had no responses and a quick look through the other questions asked around football aren’t exactly on a par with those in the social media section. That said, the growing food community on Quora is quite useful and interesting.

Perhaps the area, or social media site, that Quora could impact on the most is LinkedIn. The type of discussions are very similar to a lot of the groups I’m a member of and opening it up to a wider audience taps into even more expertise than individual LinkedIn groups can offer.

As with anything social media related, if the site, app or whatever is to break through into the mainstream it needs to reach out beyond the early adopters and those who rush to praise it off the back of this – normally the social media and tech community – without alienating those who have vocally supported it.

It’s why I’m not rushing to hail it as the future of social media or the next big thing from this area, although the amount of use and the ease with which the new users are embracing the service suggests this isn’t a flash in the pan. How far it can go is another question.

And this leads neatly onto a finishing tangent, which Quora neatly highlights. The big mainstream social media sites that are breaking through are few and far between now, despite everybody looking for them. But those, llike Qoura, that appeal to an informed niche will pick up a lot of traction.

Several years ago, I remember musing to colleagues that niche would be the next big thing. In hindsight, I was probably a bit too early but there’s no reason to reverse that prediction. The problem with networks or sites that appeal to a nice audience are they will never become as big or as sexy as Facebook or Twitter, but they have the potential for decent growth and even a business model.

Other than niche, the other obvious areas for exploding in 2011 are mobile apps and social TV. In the former, smartphone usage is becoming more ubiquitous (about half the people on my bus today had an iPhone). All it needs now is a social mobile app that changes the game completely. Foursquare isn’t quite it, though.

With the latter, you only have to tune into Twitter and Facebook during any TV show with a decent amount of viewers to see how important social media is as a backchannel. With Google and Apple moving into the TV market and a generation comfortable with social media as part of their everyday life coming into more disposable income, the potential for growth in this area is huge. When somebody makes the right product, that is.

Now, having said that, expect me to be shown up as the ignoramus I am as all these predictions turn out to be gubbins by December.

Additional: Vicky Chowney mirrors my thoughts on Quora in a much quicker, cleaner and more intelligent way.

written by Gary \\ tags: 2011 predictions, LinkedIn, Quora, social answers, social media

Who would have thought bath screens could start a good discussion on social media? On a National Union of Journalists mailing list, of the reasonably high-up members shared with us an email he’d rather mischievously sent to a DIY store asking for their review rates after they invited him to write a customer review of his purchases.

Although done in semi-seriousness, I don’t necessarily agree that it’s an area where the NUJ should be getting involved in. For me, although the quality of reviews can be variable to say the least, they are still a useful service and the company should be congratulated for trying to engage in a form of a two way conversation and even create a community, of sorts.

From a customer point of view, these visible levels of feedback are useful. Pre-web, any feedback would go deep into the company’s filing system. Even the small step of allowing reviews and comments opens this up to a new level of conversation (although the really good ones don’t just leave it at comments, they host and curate and foster a community as well).

I’m probably doing my manly image little good here by confessing DIY is something I know precious little about. To me, customer reviews from the similarly uninitiated are highly useful. A while ago a friend purchased a cabinet of sorts – several of the reviews on the site said it was a nice item but very fiddly to put together. She ignored the reviews and several hours after the delivery was cursing ignoring the reviews, and talking about adding a review herself.

This is, in my mind, hugely different from a journalistic review. I’d probably look at customer reviews first and, if still unsure, then search out a more professional view. Although whether there’s a publication that has a specific section on bath screens, I have no idea. Does that level of depth exist? I suspect the SEO for the professional publication would be much worse, and harder to find than on-site reviews.

To go further, there’s a strong argument for saying if there are paid reviews, they should be kept very separate from customer reviews on the site. At the very least they should be flagged as such. An unflagged paid review nestling among a group of unpaid customer reviews raises all sorts of questions, none of them good.

This isn’t to say companies shouldn’t include paid reviews on the site. It’s quite useful to have a neutral assessment of the product, especially for more subjective things, such as music. Whether the company wants a neutral, even critical, review of a product is another matter.

User-generated content hasn’t killed journalism, and neither will customer reviews either (you might as well argue that the BBC’s Have Your Say boards constitute opinion columns and should be paid as such). And if a company takes it on itself to create and curate a community of, say, DIY lovers that’s well-taken for the initiative (providing there is a genuine commitment to curating and keeping the community well-managed).

There’s undoubtedly an issue with profitable websites that will happily commission reviews for free when the cash is there to pay the journalist. And you can argue where the line should be drawn. I also appreciate the NUJ needs to protect the interests of its members, but I’m not convinced replacing customer reviews with professional paid-for reviews on every subject would be a particularly good way to go about it.

Others may argue this is just another way of letting amateurs into do reviews for free. I disagree. Although this skirts on area that touches on journalism, communities and the general sociability features of Web 2.0, there feels a world of difference – for the reason outlined above – between getting amateurs to fill in for journalists and getting customers to give feedback and nurture a community that can contribute positively.

The one area I’d definitely agree with the NUJ member on is the original email should have a proper contact (his reply just bounced back). I’d also be curious to see what the response would be, although I suspect we’d differ on agreement of the any reply. There are plenty of good battles for the NUJ to pick to protect the future of journalism. I don’t think this should be one of them, even if was done in semi-seriousness.

UPDATE: Comment from Sian below. I showed her the email, just to get things straight in my own head. I think she makes a reasonable point.

“The thing that bugs me about this, is that it doesn’t appear to be an NUJ stance, yet the guy who sent the email (the NUJ vice president no less) has decided that he’s going to use the weighting of his position to make trouble. “

written by Gary \\ tags: communities, feedback, journalism, NUJ, reviews

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read an article proclaiming the death of blogging, for reasons too numerous to mention. But while the independent blogging arena is constantly in a state of flux as it defines itself (mixing Heraclitus and Sartre, if you will), these last couple of weeks have shown how vital and how vibrant blogging can be when applied by the mainstream media.

Over at the Guardian, Steve Busfield’s three days of live blogging the unfolding Liverpool court drama was as good an appraisal and ongoing update of a topsy-turvy ongoing story as you’ll find anywhere, while today’s best coverage and analysis of the government spending cuts has been on assorted live blogs across the mainstream media. And earlier in the year, the G20 protests were well covered by live blogs.

In many respects, this is no different from Nosemonkey’s live blog on the London 7/7 bombings from five years ago, but, as the internet moves in circles, a little, live blogs have come back round into fashion and some. And with and even bigger wealth of sources to gather information from, they’ve become even more comprehensive in the information they provide.

This isn’t dismissing other mediums, both online and off, but none are able to tie all ends together quite like a well-written and curated live blog.

Twitter is still the best place for breaking news and developing stories that are unplanned, but when the story is expected, even if the outcome is not, then a liveblog often trumps Twitter (while drawing heavily from information on it), simply because journalistic resources have already been allocated in that direction.

Live chats, using Cover It Live and similar tools, are a fun and interesting alternative, but, having curated many myself, if the chat is successful then much of the time is spent managing the room rather than searching for extra information. It’s also quite reactive and doesn’t leave much space for analysis.

Broadcast media is still excellent in places. TV is both a fantastic medium for breaking news – after all, nothing quite hammers home a story like seeing it live – but can often be let own by the need to constantly be showing something on screen, hence the hours of filling by reporters at a scene where nothing much is happening (and is one of the reasons I tend to prefer radio at times like these).

But a liveblog can bring in all of the above. It can embed video and audio, it can tap into Tweets, it can easily flag up other relevant blogs and analysis on the subject, and the very best ones use the comments to both flag up points that the writer hasn’t already made, and steer the conversation. They also allow time for reflection and analysis during lulls.

There’s nothing new or revolutionary about live blogs but, as with so many mediums, some times all it takes is a slight improvement on what you’ve already got, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. And the fact the mainstream media live blogs attract so many hits and comments suggests they’re far from the dying industry some may suggest (although this doesn’t mean it’s an industry that’s overly secure in its future).

If anybody asks about the future of journalism, it’s hard not to get excited about what you can do with a live blog. The medium may have been around for ages but it doesn’t mean the technique is any less fresh.

written by Gary \\ tags: live blogs, livebogging, Liverpool, Liverpool ownership, spending cuts review

Like an ageing celebrity, some web companies, startup or otherwise, feel like they’ve been around forever and you assume they’re in rude health until you see a news story flash up that they’ve died.

And then you remember they exist, feel a bit sad, relive the happy memories and move on.

12seconds.tv, sadly, is that aging celebrity.

At that start of the week, the video microblogging (or microvlogging, I suppose) site announced it was to close later this month. It It was lacking: Lack of a revenue model, lack of time, lack of interest all seemed to conspire to kill it off.

Which is a shame in many ways, as every now and then you’d see a nicely worked PR campaign, or piece of community growth around the site, usually from people who knew what they were doing when it came to social media. It mark spark a bit of extra interest or a mental note to re-explore the possibilities, but then it’d usually get put to one side.

And that was probably the biggest problem – lots of people who liked the site, could see what it was for, and liked what 12seconds was doing, but never actually used the thing.

Jemima Kiss wrote a very good analysis of why video chat communities suffer – they’re high cost, the communities are often small and video chat or video microblogging still feels a bit weird. I agree – it’s one thing to type a 140 witty retort on Twitter. It’s much harder to do that well with a camera pointing at your face.

I’ll confess, I don’t think I’d even considered using one of the several vlogging sites in any kind of professional capacity or brief for about nine months now, if not longer. I don’t think I’ve heard too many people in my field mention 12seconds or Seesmic for a good while either. And I played with it a bit a few years ago but never really used any of the communities much on a personal basis.

About two or three years ago, video microblogging or live streaming felt genuinely exciting. Certainly, there was a fair bit of buzz, even from the technophobes in my then office, when the people promoting the fourth Indiana Jones film got Steven Spielberg and the stars to do a Q&A via Seesmic.

I remember looking into the possibilities of Qik, Seesmic and 12seconds, and others, for work purposes (chiefly PR at that point in time), but gradually it seemed to become less relevant to the brief. There were people using these sites but it seemed to make more sense to focus activities elsewhere.

Journalism-wise, as well, 12seconds was an interesting tool. But then, although there wasn’t the immediacy, YouTube was still the daddy (with Vimeo clinging onto the coat tails) and, for a variety of reasons, it made more sense to post elsewhere, especially if you wanted something longer than 12 seconds.

And then Audioboo was doing a nice job for the audio side of things – and you felt a lot less self conscious using this. Plus, the quality on Audioboo is generally good no matter where or what you’re using. Making good video is a lot more time consuming.

But I genuinely don’t think video blogging sites like 12seconds are completely on the way out. The innovative campaigns that were run using 12seconds and the felt the technology is getting a lot more mobile and easier to use, while increasing in quality, means you’ll always get a steady number of people working in the area.

There’s definitely a niche for a more intimate, immediate, community vlogging site that isn’t directly competing with YouTube or Twitter, although if I knew what that was, I wouldn’t be writing that now.

Certainly from both a PR and journalism perspective, there are wonderful chances to get very creative with video and some portable tools. It might even be good for the health of this particular area if it was written off – it would give those who are genuinely passionate about it the chance to build something away from the limelight a little.

Video’s such a ubiquitous medium that I’ve no doubt someone, somewhere will come up with a great idea. In the meantime, there’ll be one less place to experiment with. 12seconds.tv will be missed, but probably not for much longer than that length of time.

written by Gary

What happens when you put a load of bloggers and PRs in the same room and get them to discuss their industry? Fight? Or consensus? Or both?

The most recent London Bloggers Meetup didn’t quite reach either of those stages but the panel / open floor debate was interesting, partly because it showed how little the debate, and indeed industry, has moved on.

The panel lined up with Cate Sevilla from Bitch Buzz, Chris Osburn aka Tiki Chris, and Pete Stean from The Londoneer, with Stephen Waddington (Wadds) from Speed Communications, Matt Churchill from Edelman and Laurence Borel (Lolly) from Mindshare on the PR side.

Two things were very evident in the debate. There were some interesting points but listening felt very much like déjà vu. I’d sat in similar panels, debates and training sessions two years ago. But then, as Wadds said, the issue of poor PR pitching has gone on from the year dot.

Secondly, there was a lot of consensus between the two sides that things could and should be done better. Although it’s also worth saying that Matt, Lolly and Wadds are three PRs who know what they’re talking about when it comes to social media. They’re the shining examples from their profession.

Sadly not all PRs are like these three. Lolly also pointed out that often clients will give PRs very little leeway when it comes to blogger outreach campaigns and can make near impossible demands.

Broadly, though, there was a lot of agreement both from the panel and the floor on PR and blogger relations, bar the person who asked – and hopefully this was just playing devil’s advocate – whether bloggers would be more likely to write about something if they were paid for it.

There are several issues with this, which I’d briefly like to touch on.

1. It probably borders on the illegal, due to EU regulations. Darika can tell you more about this, as she knows the topic better than me.

2. If the PR is offering cash then chances are the subject of the pitch isn’t very good. An exciting, well-done pitch will snare the recipient’s interest regardless. Cash offers look desperate.

3. The sums on offer are often insultingly low. On the rare occasions I’ve been offered cash to post on this blog, which I’ve turned down, it’s generally been between £10 and £40 and often come with a lot of strings attached. My view is that if you’re offering cash in return for me writing then you’re commissioning a piece from me and I’ll charge according to the relevant NUJ rate.

Another point that could easily be coupled to this is advertising. Lolly, emphatically and correctly, said that PR is not advertising. However, offering payment for blogging on a topic definitely blurs a line between the two and it’s hard to view it as anything other than advertorial. But it’s worth emphasising again: PR is not advertising.

But although the general discussions weren’t new, the idea of the blogger-as-professional, as mentioned by both sides, has changed over the past few years.

It’s easy to lump all blogs into the same grouping, but that would be like lumping all TV programmes into the same category. Yes, the broadcasted medium is the same for all, but there are differences, both obvious and nuanced.

Broadly speaking, you can probably divide blogs today into four categories:

a) The professional blogger. This person blogs for a living and depends on the blog to some extent to support them financially, or has aspirations that the blog will earn them money one day.

b) The professional amateur. This person spends a lot of time blogging but will run their blog alongside their day job. However, they also take great pride in their blog and look for it to be as professional as a mainstream media organisation. Money is probably secondary to content.

c) The amateur professional. This is somebody who works in the media, possibly involving blogging, but runs a blog in their spare time (usually on a free template rather than paid hosting), which will be well-written and probably known within the industry. I’d probably say this blog comes under this category. They’re probably indifferent about money, unless needed, due to their job elsewhere.

d) The amateur amateur. They blog for themselves and / or friends. They are unlikely to realise or care if people other than friends or a few randoms read their blog. Would be surprised at any offers to making money. Will always be hosted on a free template.

Of these, the top two categories start blurring the line with journalist, although would as likely resolutely call themselves bloggers. These are the two types of blogs PR would be most interested in, while, unless the amateur amateur had an influential niche following, it’s unlikely PR would ever pitch to them.

Put simply, many blogs have got more sophisticated, and will either be collective efforts with an editor or writers, or sit as part of an over-arching (usually niche interest) banner, albeit with a free reign on topics (and it’s why I don’t think blogging is dead or dying, it’s just consolidating, just as the radical press did in the early days of print journalism).

But then, not all professional bloggers and professional amateurs will be open to pitches of all kinds. It’s always a case of ensuring they’re correctly targeted.

Does this make them journalists? Yes and no, depending on the blog and the individual. Should the PR be treating them as journalists? Yes and also no again. It’s just a question of adjusting your strategy to take in the medium. Just as you wouldn’t pitch a story with poor or non-existent filming opportunities to a TV journalist, so you wouldn’t pitch like a print journalist to a blogger.

The desired outcome and the pitch may not be wildly different, but it has to take into account the medium it’s being pitched to, regardless of the professional status or otherwise of the recipient.

So where does this bring us to? Well, not much different than the start of the debate. Everybody thinks PR could do better, while those journalists who open themselves up to PR pitches could be a little more understanding. The debate, arguments and conclusions aren’t exactly new, although there are detectable groundshifts.

But for all my scepticism on whether the blogging and PR debate has moved on at all in the past two or three years, it’s worth putting that to one side to say the debate was fun and interesting, and to congratulate all involved in putting their heads above the parapet. And also to say thanks to Andy Bargery, who continues to organise the London Bloggers’ Meetups and ensures everybody has a fantastic night (I know I did).

And of the debate itself. Well, as Cate Sevilla, probably the most impressive of the six, said as she rounded up, “It’s not frickin’ difficult.”

It’s  slogan that should be printed out and posted on the monitor of every aspiring PR, social media or otherwise.

written by Gary \\ tags: blogger engagement, London Bloggers Meetup, PR and blogging, PR pitching

If anonymous commenting on the internet had a users guide, then one of the more sensible pieces of advice would be “Don’t do it from your work PC.”

It’s advice a commenter on the previous post would have been good to consider. I don’t make a habit of running Whois searches on the IP address of every commenter but, given that this place doesn’t get that many trolls or sockpuppets, and given the subject matter, I was a bit curious. Turns out the IP address was from one of the (many) PR agencies who’ve pitched me this World Cup.

Fail.

My first instinct was to blog about it. Look at me! I’ve found another PR person not getting online! I can call them out and it’ll add to the legions of PR fails!

Yes, that would have been fun. But what would it really achieve, in all honesty?

I’m not in the habit of naming and shaming – it’s always struck me as a little counter productive. And, frankly, it the grand scheme of things immature PR leaves childish anonymous comment on insignificant blog isn’t really up there with war crimes.

After sleeping on it, I felt less comfortable with the idea of outing the agency. After all, one employee isn’t representative of the whole company.

The thought also occurred that if this had been a piece of journalism for publication I would have at least made an effort to get the accused’s side of the story before going anywhere near the publish button. And if, as I’ve often said, bloggers aspire to be journalists, then they should hold themselves to the standards journalists have as well. Even if journalists regularly fall short of these themselves.

So I emailed the director of the agency, who emailed back promptly, with an invitation to talk over the issues on the phone, which I did.

And I now consider the matter to be at an end, and I’m really satisfied with the response (and no, I didn’t demand any action against the perpetrator. It’s not my place to tell a company how to conduct their own HR).

Why? Because ten minutes on the phone was productive. The director came across as very switched on and took the issues seriously. I came away with a very favourable impression.

What’s more, we both agreed to keep each other’s contact details. They’d contact me if they thought it would be useful, but would also take me off the general mailing list, and I know that there’s somebody at the agency I can contact if I’m writing stories on certain topics, which I may well do in the future.

A win-win situation, really.

So, what’s the lesson (other than don’t try and post childish comments on a blog during work time).

While there’s a lot wrong with PR, there’s also a lot of good, sensible people working hard in the industry, doing their best to make connections with bloggers. And to a certain extent they have to tread on eggshells while doing this.

A wrong move with the wrong blogger, no matter how well meaning or unintentional and you can find yourself passed around Twitter, mocked by all and sundry. There’s no guarantee that if you catch the blogger on a bad day with a bad move, they won’t take umbridge and blog about it.

Not that there’s anything wrong with calling out bad practice, when appropriate.

But it did make me stop and think. How many bloggers have burned bridges or got themselves a reputation for being difficult for happily blogging PR fails.

Yet could they have improved things and actually developed a good long-term relationship with a good contact if they’d taken a step back and tried to resolve things behind the scenes first. It’s not as if anybody was going to beat them to publishing it, in a lot of cases.

One line from an old news editor of mine always sticks in my mind – “[Competitor x] may be first. But we’re always going to be right.” In other words, I’d always prefer to take a while longer to establish and verify the facts rather than rush to publish. Today was no different. I’m glad I did.

I consider today’s conversation confidential, although I think it’s worth quoting one line from my conversation. As an agency, I was told, we’re committed to treating bloggers the same as journalists.

I like that, I think it’s a good attitude. It’s something I’ve said roughly the same in the past, although you obviously have to make allowances for the different medium you’re working with.

And although bloggers are very good at calling out bad journalism, both blogs and journalists can be even quicker to call out bad PR – whether it’s justified or not – or calling out anything they consider wrong in general.

I’ve seen plenty of examples over the last couple of years where bloggers and PR have got into very public spats over something that has always struck me could have been dealt with without having to go public.

There’s a lot to be said for making an effort to build contacts and relationships rather than losing it quickly (although equally you can say that PR in general could avoid a lot of these issues if people from the industry didn’t continue to make elementary errors).

I’ve always maintained that others should be treated with the same respect you’d hope to be treated. I’d like to hope that, God forbid, should I make a similar fail one day, that the blogger has the good grace to contact me and give me a chance to talk over the issue before hitting publish.

I’d be interested in hearing your views on this one. Do you think bloggers hit publish too quickly? Should they blog first and ask questions later? Or is it only fair? What would you have done?

I don’t think there are any right answers, personally, but I’m very glad I took the time to contact them. Given the chance I’d much rather try and work on developing a relationship rather than kill it before it had the chance to succeed or fail.

written by Gary \\ tags: blogging, journalism ethics, pitching bloggers, PR