Watching, say, Channel 4′s Undateables, the little nudge with the Twitter hashtag at the start and after each commercial break made me a little more inclined to pick up my phone and check the conversation (it helps the show was easy enough to dip in and out of).

It’s been playing on my mind, ever since I read Shazam’s plans for a greater focus on television. There’s some impressive ideas, two-screening and extra content, but they key point I took away from the article was the on-screen call to action.

For all the added extras and the online (or off-screen, if you will), never underestimate how big a driver this is towards interaction. I know from past experience that you can have great content, but the CTA is still the best way to push people to this.

Yes, some TV is driven socially, and some programmes can often take on a second life, or get a lot of pickup following critical acclaim on Twitter (which feeds more into the longtail and the catch-up elements), but for programmes aimed at a mass audience or an audiences not necessarily the most digitally-minded, using the method with the biggest audience (ie the broadcast) is always going to be a winner.

There are other drivers. Well placed and written links at choice areas online work well. Traditional PR with mainstream and online coverage. Adverts, and a push through any relevant apps. But with the screen you have a captive audience giving more of their concentration.

And, crucially, what’s being offered must be compelling enough to catch first the early adopters and then a more mainstream audience, so subsequent calls become reminders rather than discovery and eventually, it becomes second nature, or at least more natural.

It’s why I’m not convinced that apps such as GetGlue will go beyond a niche (or may chose to focus on a different niche). The level of interaction is offers is poor compared to what Shazam appears to have (I say this with caveats and qualifications having not used Shazam for TV).

Ultimately, for second screening, you want something that complements what you’re watching – that’s sociable but doesn’t intrude, guides you to extra content but doesn’t push unnecessary extras with excessive DOGs, CTAs and generally offering content that’s limited in value.

I told you the analogy was poor. Sorry about that.

The afternoon roundtables and plenary session largely concerned arts organisations’ ability to respond to marketing and PR challenges in a digital area, but much of the chat inevitably came back to trust – who to accredit and could bloggers and startups be trusted  as reviewers. Should they be given tickets and what risks were associated with this?

But in this discussion the missing element was basic word of mouth marketing from friends. Sure, theatregoers will be influenced by critics who know their theatre and have seen countless productions. They may laugh at a blog that can wittily deconstruct an average production but if a friend or trusted acquaintance or voice recommends a production then that weighting counts for a lot.

For example, My recent theatre or arts centre visits have been influenced, in no particular order by the following places:  a close friend on Twitter, a friend in the industry, Dr Ben Goldacre via Twitter, my girlfriend (who was actually influenced by her family and traditional marketing), Spoonfed, a performer in the show, and a poster outside the venue. None of these are what you’d call the traditional way of marketing and critics reviews enticing an audience member in.

Like other forms of culture – be it music, books, film or theatre, friend recommendation counts for a lot. I’ve avoided a few films and plays in the past on the basis of feedback from friends, even when some of them are garnering positive reviews. While I can’t speak for the plays, when I’ve finally got round to watching said films, it’s generally been a good call to avoid them in the cinema.

This isn’t to say critics aren’t influential. Or that blogs or specific websites aren’t influential either (as David Bloom from Target Live mentioned, several years ago, Spoondfed were unlikely to be on any arts organisations D-list. Now they’re a fixture for London PRs). Martin Belam told the assembled audience of a specific Twitter feed for arts and culture in Walthamstow. No blog, just a Twitter feed, and a popular one at that. Should PR engage with this form of publishing (absolutely, I’d say, if putting on a show in Walthamstow. It may not have as many followers as a more established media outlet, but it’s certainly going to have relevant followers).

In the land of theatre critics can still make a significant impact on the show, while their reviews will count for a lot of terms of SEO. Where a show has a limited run, chances are anyone Googling for more information will come across at least one review from a critic on the first page of results. Perhaps this mindset shift (and the longtail of content) may not have occurred to some arts organisations. It should.

In this fragmented digital age, a recommendation for the theatre is still a recommendation for the theatre, no matter who it comes from. And a Tweet can easily go beyond the small sphere of the original Tweeter into something much wider.

And while much of what was discussed was Twitter, there’s a good chance plenty of word-of-mouth will be done via Facebook. There’s a huge recommendation network amongst friends on the social behemoth. Plus Google’s accentuation of your social network in their Search Plus Your World updates give a lot of credence to your friends’ searches, +1s and recommendations.

The challenge, as it always is, it to bring this all into one coherent, tied-up strategy, which is easier said than done, especially for the much smaller organisations with a small budget and just a handful of staff and no money to employ somebody to do this full time.

Nonetheless, sorting out the SEO and a joined up approach between their own website, Twitter and Facebook will help, as will nurturing the right communities and tying in excellent customer service. If somebody Tweets about the theatre after a show, chances are they’ll be thinking about returning again, and there’s always the possibility they’ll bring a friend, and if they enjoy it… and so on.

At the very least, it’s worth keeping a search for specific terms, replies and hashtags running on Tweetdeck during the day, even if the mentions are just noted for later (although a nice thank you Tweet will never go amiss).

Of course, in discussing this form of marketing, it’s easy to put everything in nice neat boxes. Bloggers here, critics there, word-of-mouth marketing somewhere else. In truth, it’s much more fragmented and, without wanting to sound too paradoxical, joined up.

Critics will often Tweet after performances, write blogs, the commissioned review, and share these on Facebook, either via their own page or the publication’s page. Bloggers will do the same and more. Chances are (if they’re any good at this social malarky) they’ll even interact and built up a trusted relationship with their audience – a pseudo-friend if you will.

But despite all this, harnessing good word-of-mouth and the power of friend recommendations has never been more important. The critics and bloggers will always appeal and be read by regular theatregoers (and those searching for more information on a show in the first place – but at least the information is there). The challenge is reaching out to those who rarely or never go to the theatre. And when it comes to getting them to try something new or unfamiliar, there’s nothing more persuasive than a friend using their virtual hand to guide you.

EDIT: And as if to back up this point, here comes a study suggesting we trust Tweets from people we know rather than those we don’t, even if that person is a journalist (or critic or blogger).

Patently they didn’t and this is an absurd, faecetious example. But even the most absurd, faecetious example is often based on a modicum of truth. And while this post isn’t another tedious “Twitter is dead” article, it does contain some musings on the medium, specifically in relation to an area I know well: football.

And as we’re going with the absurd, the oblique and the poorly thought-through metaphors, let me head, temporarily, into the realms of Eric Cantona.

Imagine a fishmonger. He puts a chalk sign outside his shop saying “FRESH FISH SOLD HERE.” He steps back to survey his work. The fishmonger is also a rational and critical man. He realises the word HERE is unnecessary. The location of the shop doesn’t change, and this should be obvious. He rubs HERE out.

He looks again. If HERE is unnecessary, so is SOLD. Having a fishmonger that doesn’t sell fish is somewhat ridiculous. He rubs out SOLD. He looks again. “Surely,” he thinks, “you would assume that a fishmonger won’t be selling fish that isn’t fresh. To put up FRESH is unnecessary. It draws attention to something that should be self-evident.” He rubs out FRESH. He looks at the sign again, and takes it back inside.

This is roughly how I feel about Tweeting about football on Twitter.

I have two Twitter accounts. A personal one and @gafootbl. I created the latter largely to talk about football, as not to annoy my non-football supporting friends, and to talk about issues in football I was working on writing articles about and general opinions on the game. In the last few weeks my posting count has dropped dramatically.

I’ve always held that (bar my personal Tweeting) if you’re writing something professionally, which is roughly what @gafootbl is, then you should be telling your audience something they don’t already know or haven’t already considered. It’s increasingly hard to think of anything that can be added to the party here, bar some rather sorry looking cheese and pineapple sticks.

It started with live games. I’m very rarely at live games these days, and even rarer at games that others aren’t at. Chances are I’m watching the same game thousands of others are watching on the sofa or in the press box, and all will be tweeting roughly the same thing. Does it really need a extra person to Tweet “Oh my God, that was amazing from Messi,” or “Darren Bent LOL.”

Twitter is actually becoming an increasing distraction during games and I’ve taken to turning it off while I watch, unless it’s a truly dire game (and even then I’m likely to switch the TV off completely).

It’s increasingly difficult to focus on the match when you’ve got a large number of incredibly loud opinionated and occasionally irritating fans offering their take on a game you’re perfectly capable of watching with your own eyes. You know the type, the ones that aren’t exactly fun to sit by during a game.

Football’s a social experience, true, but it’s a lot less fun to two-screen for football than it is for X-Factor or even rugby. This may be due to the concentration levels required, and the fact that football games often game very quickly. I’m reminded of the American broadcaster who showed adverts during breaks in play at USA ’94 and ended up missing goals. Rugby, with the elongated natural breaks gives you chance to pause and draw breath.

Football has always been inherently social anyway, as is TV watching as an activity. Using Twitter is probably no different than it would be in any other social situation. If you’re in a pub by yourself, you may well decide to keep quieter when reacting to a game amongst strangers (or you may make a lot of noise – we’ve all stood by one of them). With friends or acquaintances, chances are you’ll chat a lot more. Me, I try not to chat too much if the game is engaging.

So, that’s games, which I’ve no wish to Tweet through. Then there’s breaking news. I’m no longer really a journalist, bar the odd piece of freelance work here and there to keep my hand in. I don’t have access to the wires and I’m focused more than ever on my day job, something I genuinely enjoy. Consequently, it feels a bit pointless to be tweeting or retweeting news or opinions on breaking news that’s already done the rounds for about half an hour by the time I’ve got round to seeing it.

As for actual news itself, as I say, I’m not a sports journalist. I have no really level of insight or connections to a club that I can Tweet out, unless I happen to be researching something in-depth for the occasional article. There’s others better connected to each club, either as fans or reporters, so it’s a tad pointless to weigh in with something marginally less informed.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, it’s far better to keep your mouth shut and let people assume you’re an idiot than to open it and confirm it.

And then there’s general opinions. Again, largely what I have here is no different than what half a dozen people will have already Tweeted. Sharing said opinion just feels little more than soapboxing for the sake of getting a reaction. And often I don’t mind the reaction, but it’s almost impossible to get across the nuance and analysis I want in just 140 characters.

This is more than a little problematic when you have fans of pretty much every club ready to leap on any Tweet that contains any hint of bias and isn’t meticulously balanced in just a few words (I once got taken to task by a Bridgwater Town fan because I’d gone to watch my local team as a partisan fan and hadn’t given his team enough credit for the goal. Which is a petty thing to get worked up about, but there you go).

We all know Twitter’s somewhat of an echo chamber and when you follow a lot of people all shouting that this news is TERRIBLY IMPORTANT AND YOU MUST TWEET AN OPINION ON IT. It feels a tad overwhelming, even if it’s probably largely unrepresentative of the wider world and just confined to this particular niche.

I like chatting football still, generally, but football fans and Twitter seem to have got oddly angrier and more ready to take offence these days. And, largely, shouting out into Twitter feels like shouting into a busy pub and waiting for the person who disagrees the most with you to shout back.

I’ve never liked busy pubs. I much prefer quiet pints.

Increasingly, I like Google+ for the way I can update from the same account and not annoy non-footballing people, but also for the quality of debate from the few people who populate the network – although these are very few in number.

But, but, but, you work in social Gary. You know how the web works. You know how Twitter works. If you’re not prepared to get involved, then you’re doing it wrong.

Yeah, yeah, I know. If it’s something I feel strongly about, I’ll Tweet. If there’s something I think deserves wider attention, I’ll Tweet. And if there’s somebody I want to reply to, I’ll Tweet. But these are few and far between. I honestly don’t have that strong an opinion on about 95% of football news, or I don’t have an opinion that hasn’t been retweeted plenty of times by others. So it’s easier to retweet than offer a slightly pointless rehash.

I’ve never liked writing or speaking just for the sake of writing or speaking. I still like Twitter, I still think it’s useful for finding out information or articles I wouldn’t have usually found. But in terms of Tweeting, I’m using it less broadcast my opinions. Chances are, I’ll just be retweeting my agreement, at best.

Oddly, despite the echo chamberness of Twitter, it’s only really football where I’ve felt this. Well, maybe politics, but that’s something I really make a point of avoiding getting involved in due to its inherent unpleasant tribal nature. Other interests or other echo chamber moments, such as TV and the like, doesn’t quite feel the same. Is it just me, or have you had similar thoughts and feelings in other industries?

Sky have actually been pretty good in recent years with their use of social media and Neal Mann (aka @fieldproducer) in particular doing much to enhance the news organisation’s reputation online.

It would be wrong to suggest that Sky don’t get social media on the basis of some slightly poorly written guidelines, more that they’re attempting to grapple with a very 21st century issue of protecting and enhancing their brand online while adhering to the unofficial conventions of the social media communities, such as (and mainly) Twitter.

The biggest overall questions and issues with the guidelines seem to be they’ve been poorly communicated and contain too many questions. As a work in progress there’s some sensible ideas and others where you can see the rationale but not the detail.

Although social media isn’t (thank God) a science, it never hurts to take a scientific approach to policy and guidelines – namely throw plenty of rocks at it and see if it stands up, then treat it as a living, breathing theory and if too many holes start to appear then start to revise the accepted dogma you’re working from.

And there’s where the problems lie. A policy on not RTing other outlets or journalists is useful advice in a breaking news situation, where it’s better to verify your sources than rely on Twitter hearsay (many who should know better on Twitter don’t always realise one Tweet does not make a fact, although you can usually judge well enough from where the Tweet originated from).

But equally such a policy appears too restrictive to allow RTing of noteworthy statements from public figures that, in themselves, make newsworthy headlines.

Kevin Anderson is right when he says for reporters, Twitter is like a beat – you get to know which contacts you can trust, over time. Ultimately, a good organisation is one that empowers and trusts its staff.

As I head back into my guidelines for what I think is about the seventh tweak and rewrite, it’s alll about finding that balance. You want to make sure those staff who are still unsure about using social media (and yes, there are still plenty of those) feel encouraged and empowered to pick up what can be an important and useful tool on both a personal and professional level. Not just that, but that there is clarity and a support network for them if they have any questions and don’t feel scared or so cocksure that they’re doing something restless.

At the same time, the guidelines need to cover those who are comfortable online and give them a little more clarity in their day-to-day work. It may there that the occasional compromise has to be made on both sides. But just as the novice shouldn’t feel that they’re being cast out alone into a social world, so those with more experience shouldn’t feel like their wings are being clipped.

As I say, it’s quite a balancing act to pull off.

Ultimately, the best words I’ve ever seen in social media guidelines are “be sensible.” For journalists, that means making sure you can verify what you’ve just tweeted or retweeted. For others working in a professional capacity on social media, that means being aware that what you say and retweet will be read in context of your brand or employer. All of this should be done while attributing to the right sources, even if occasionally it means biting the bullet and mentioning a competitor. It may do you a world of good in the long run.

And for those writing the guidelines to acknowledge that social media is a fast-developing area where conventions and ideals often change quickly. In short, the guidelines should be clear enough to cover the majority of issues but have enough leeway so exceptions can be made. Which leads to the second best set of words I’ve seen in guidelines: “If you’re unsure, ask.”

If you can boil your guidelines down to these two phrases then chances are you’re starting from a very sensible point for your social media guidelines.

Having these companies potentially compete against Sky is a fascinating future, so, in a rare piece that might appeal to both football and technology fans, I’ve considered what could be quite a fragmented future for football broadcasting over at Pitch Invasion.

Exciting times. I’m now a published writer (of sorts).

A couple of years ago, due to some time off between switching jobs, I spent a week researching and writing a series of posts on fan ownership, activism and the successes and limitations for Pitch Invasion. I’m normally pretty critical of my work, and, as ever, there’s things I’d change, but it’s also some of the work I’m most proud of, given the amount of work I put into it. Oddly, I still get the occasional media enquiry to talk about fan ownership off the back of it.

A while back, Tom Dunmore, the editor of Pitch Invasion, contacted me to say he was putting together an ebook of the best of Pitch Invasion’s writing and would I be ok with including my work in it.

Naturally, I jumped at the chance.

That was some time ago, and I’d put it somewhat to the back of my mind until recently when the book became close to being finalised. Along the way it grew another head and Tom decided to produce a print version. I can’t wait to hold this in my hands.

So, yes, The Best Of Pitch Invasion is now out and available for Kindle, as an ebook or as a physical copy.

I’d urge you all to buy a copy – not really so much for my writing, but because there are a LOT of essays from some truly excellent writers. Pitch Invasion has always been a markedly different blog to many other soccer sites and there’s always a lot of thought, depth, knowledge and research in the pieces.

If you’re a regular reader of When Saturday Comes, World Soccer or even The Blizzard, it may well appeal (not that I think my writing can hold a candle to these publications).

So, yes, please buy a copy. You’ll be doing some in the knowledge that you’re supporting a genuinely independent publication, and will own a book that should at least make you think and look at football in a slightly different light.

Ingredients

1 medium onion, chopped

1 clove garlic, crushed

2 stems celery, chopped

Garam masala

1 can chopped tomatoes

1 can butterbeans

400ml vegetable stock

Parsley

Salt and pepper (to season)

Heat a small amount of sunflower oil in a large saucepan or deep bottomed frying pan, along with the garam masala. Throw in the onions, celery and garlic and fry for 4 mins or until slightly soft and coated in the spice. Add the butterbeans with their liquid, the vegetable stock and the chopped tomatoes.

Stir and turn down the heat to low. Add the parsley and season with salt and pepper to your taste. Leave simmering for 20-30 mins. Remove from heat and blend the mixture, in batches if necessary. Return to the heat, warm through and serve with some crusty bread.

I’m not hugely familiar or necessarily a massive fan of Alice Cooper’s music, but it struck me how unusual it is for a musician to have not just a self awareness of his hits but also a joy for still playing them. “I’m a music fan,” he said, “And when I go to a gig, I want to hear the classics too.”

Yes, no experimental jazz versions. No reluctant musician resenting wheeling out the songs they’re best known for. Listening to Cooper deconstruct School’s Out – “You only get one chance to create an anthem, and this was ours” – was fascinating.

The interview touched on a number of other topics, including his near-death experiences, his willingness to fight in Vietnam and the tongue-in-cheek humour in his performances and songs.

Given the outcry over Alice Cooper and the band’s performances at the height of their fame, there’s a delicious irony (that you sense he appreciates) that the once-demonised singer is witty, humble, intelligent and an all-round nice guy, and a Christian as well.

It’s a wonderful interview and a simple, brilliant piece of programming. BBC Four throws up some wonderfully fascinating programmes at times – and, rarely, one that actually makes me want to sit and write about it.

It’s available on the iPlayer until Monday, 28 November.

Joking as I may have been, with staff numbers down and pressure to produce rolling content on the up, there’s a lot more churnalism and reliance on syndicated agency content. Much as journalists would like to be out and about, exposing wrongdoing and reporting original content, modern demands make this kind of hard.

As such, there’s a lot of copy and pasting from other sources. If one paper, radio or other media source carries a story, others will take the main line and reproduce this, namechecking the original.

Actually, this isn’t a new thing. It’s sort of vital for the news industry to exist. One outlet will look slow if they’re not leading with the line obtained by their rivals, so often they’ll take the main points and rewrite into their own news story. It’s pretty common and generally accepted practice in the news industry. Whether it’s a practice you feel is proper journalism is another question (although it’s quite a skill to be able to rewrite agency copy well).

Where it isn’t accepted is in the blogging community, which is much more open to quoting, attributing and, most importantly, linking back to the original source. As somebody who’s been blogging in various guises since in 2003, this is nearly second nature to me and something I’ve carried into online journalism without any problem.

But when two very different worlds collide, there will be problems, and this was the case earlier this week. Gav Stone, who writes the specialist Les Rosbifs blog, focusing on the careers on English footballers abroad, pulled off something off a coup by securing an interview with former England, FC Twente and Wolsburg manager Steve McClaren about his time managing in Europe.

Let’s just emphasise this. A fully independent blogger who edits his site as a hobby and no typical mainstream access secured an interview with a reasonably recent England manager and who is still active in the game today. Unless it’s part of a PR event, these type of interviews are unusual on independent blogs and rarer still to be in such depth.

Understandably Gav was, to put it mildly, a bit miffed when a chunk of his interview turned up a few days later as a lifted and rewritten news story (“Macca: Twenty joy my career high) on Sky Sports, Team Talk and other sites that Sky had syndicated the story to.

After emailing and receiving no response, Gav called them out on Twitter. The response from the journalists on these sites was a mixture of defensive, patronising, a tad arrogant and one that showed very little understanding of the web.

Chief among Gavin’s complaints was the lack of a link back to the source of the story. Team Talk et al had credited the interview to Les Rosbifs (although with no explanation as to who or what the site was) and hadn’t linked back, and hadn’t asked permission to use the quotes in the first place. What started off as a slightly miffed request from a blogger has escalated into a stage where lawyers are being consulted.

To my mind, there are four different aspects to this: the moral and ethical and legal implications of Sky’s actions, the issue of proper crediting, the issue of hyperlinking, and the general attitude of a mainstream media publication towards an independent blog.

Morals, ethics, and legality

Legally, Sky were probably just about on the right side of the law (although my own copyright knowledge is somewhat hazy). The fair dealing exception, whereby content is used for comment or rewritten is very common in journalism, and largely expected among media organisations – getting a paper or news bulletin out would be nigh-on impossible without it.

It’s also worth pointing out Sky didn’t, technically, steal the interview. The articles – now removed (in itself curious given the robust defence of their methods offered by Team Talk members on Twitter) – did lift several lengthy quotes from Les Rosbifs. However, the news angle was changed, there are some (admittedly, not many) original words in the pieces and much of the context and depth provided by the original interview wouldn’t be apparent without reading the full original piece.

So, setting legal concerns to one side (and it would be interesting to see if any lawyers think Sky overstepped the mark and the piece was problematic legally, the moral and ethical concerns still come into play. And largely politeness too.

Had Sky approached Gavin for permission, it’s likely that the response and conversation would have been much more amicable. But that in itself causes problems. As Tom Phillips commented on my Google+ (subscribers only, sorry), permission is an odd thing. Many bloggers quote from the mainstream press liberally. Should they contact the journalist or publication every time they want to write their own article based around somebody else’s work. The idea seems somewhat absurd when turned around, even if it is good manners.

But it still somehow feels wrong, ethically. This isn’t a writer working in the cut and thrust of journalism, this is a blogger who has done this work in his spare time, and now sees somebody else profiting from the work he has done. The attitude of some of the journalists working for Sky was far from classy and left something to be desired. Gav wasn’t playing with the big boys, who was pursuing an interest.

One final point here. Gavin secured the interview with McClaren on the basis that he was not mainstream press. When McClaren’s quotes (perhaps to be expected, and perhaps a small touch of naivety on both McClaren and Gavin’s parts) found their way onto Sky, that hurts the relationship built up by Gavin.

Relationships between the media and many football figures are touchy at best. By trampling over Les Rosbifs’ interview, Sky have strained that relationship between McClaren, the press and bloggers just that little bit further.

In the credits

From Sky / Team Talk’s point of view, they’d credited Les Rosbifs. From their perspective, that was it. The credit, though, isn’t entirely clear who or what Les Rosbifs is. The credit simply reads “In an interview with Les Rosbifs…”.

Be honest here. Unless you were a football blogger or happened to know Gav personally, would you know what Les Rosbifs was? For all was made clear, it could have just as easily been a French cooking blog that happened to have interviewed McClaren about nutrition, and wider football issues.

Gav himself has said there’s been no real spike in traffic and other articles that have appeared on other sites haven’t even carried Les Rosbifs’ name. That credit may work fine for, say, The Mirror, but again, feels disingenuous in the context of Gavin’s site. Should you wish to find the whole interview, there’s no indication how to go about this (and remember, many readers are lazy).

But where the issue really becomes important is that of hyperlinking.

The links effect

The hyperlinking issue is where we can see clear effects, differences between Gav and Sky, and, on the part of Team Talk, a complete misunderstanding of how the internet works.

Mark Holmes, one of Team Talk’s journalists, first told Gav on Twitter that Team Talk knew how to credit properly, but then went onto express amazement as to why anybody would ever request a link to the source material in a post. This is somewhat staggering from an online journalist.

I’ve written in the past how hyperlinks are one of the most valuable pieces of currency on the internet. From the most basic point of view, it’s just good practice to link back to your sources – it provides an easy way for readers to find the original in one easy click, shows how much has been taken and is an open and transparent way of acknowledging original material.

Adding a link is quick, easy (and wouldn’t, unlike Mark Holmes claimed, add 10% more work to Team Talk’s day) and good practice, and helps deliver more traffic to the original site. Personally, I’d like to see all agency syndication include links to sources in their copy – and it’s up to the site to decide if they want to link or not.

But this is just a small part of the benefits of linking back to the source. Had a site like Sky or Team Talk, with a high trust ranking in Google, linked back to the original article, then this in itself would provide an excellent virtual form of payment to Gav and help boost the SEO for his site and especially the McClaren article.

By not linking to the source, this becomes more of an issue. Some time after publication, the Sky article ranked higher than the Les Rosbifs article in Google. Not only had Sky lifted a chunk of the interview, it was now benefitting in search terms. Even entering LEs Rosbifs into search saw Gav’s site rank lower.

Mark Chalcraft at 2nd Yellow has written about the implications of duplicated content for bloggers in terms of SEO and Google ranking. What, to a big site, may seem like an insignificant link actually has big implications helping deliver hits to smaller, independent blogs (I’m personally of the view that all sites should link to source material, unless there’s a compelling reason not to).

This is why, to me, the issue of crediting online shouldn’t just be a throwaway line about the origin. It should be clear, transparent and include links wherever possible. Not only does this benefit the reader, it benefits and rewards original material with minimum of effort.

But you’re just a blogger…

And this all comes back to the original attitude of several Sky journalists, who seemed amazed that the blogger they’d taken the content was rather persistent in asking for a link.

To say Gavin wasn’t being professional and should be more polite when asking for a link back to content they’d taken from his site in the first place is not just patronising, it’s incredibly arrogant. Without the legwork Gavin put in, there would be no story at all.

We’re frequently told the boundaries between blogging and journalism have broken down. This is true to an extent. When everybody from the BBC to ITV to the Guardian to the Telegraph blogs, you can safely say it’s a valid medium.

The boundaries between bloggers and journalists, though, have still, if this incident is anything to go by, most definitely not broken down. Gavin’s interview is a well researched and written piece of journalism, although he’s not a journalist. The rewrite is only tenuously journalism insofar as it’s published on a journalistic platform. Yet it is the latter who are seen as the gatekeeper still.

Team Talk and Sky will always get the bigger hits, but that’s not what this is about. Les Rosbifs is niche, and makes a virtue of this. The work is just as valid this way (and, if anything, more impressive given it is written outside of a day job). There is a hierarchy in terms of page views, yes, but not so much in status.

Should bloggers expect to be compensated when their work is lifted? Debatable. I’d say proper, fully-linked crediting isn’t a bad payment.

Should bloggers be asked to have their quotes used elsewhere? Again, possibly. These aren’t, strictly speaking, journalistic publications. There is no established culture of lifting and rewriting content, thankfully. There is more of a culture of openness, transparency and respect for source material and this is something journalists would be well advised to be mindful of when using independent blogs as a source.

Was it stealing? In my view, no. I have nothing against the practice per se, even if I don’t necessarily like how lifting is a commonplace tactic in the industry (copy and paste is, after all, hardly journalism). It’s a necessary evil, sadly.

But even though it isn’t stealing, in the legal sense of the word, it is, overall, poor form, and reflects badly on Sky and Team Talk, both for the initial perceived transgression and subsequent attitude towards the complaint. What could have been sorted quickly and easily escalated into something much more unpleasant. Social media crises have been created for brands out of less.

As with so much on the internet, it comes down to a judgement call. It is absurd to request permission from every single source, every single time (although there is absolutely no reason for not crediting and linking to them). But if the site is a small, independent blog like Les Rosbifs rather than one of your main competitors, it hurts nobody to use a bit of politeness.

Who knows, if they’d asked nicely, they may have even got an original piece of content from Gavin, based on the interview, which would have been a win-win situation for everybody (ok, maybe not necessarily with this particular content. But it’s an entirely plausible scenario).

If you’ve absolutely no idea what a QR code is, then you’re not alone. According to a recent survey by Simpson Carpenter, just 36% of British consumers know what QR codes are for, while  only 11% have actually used them. In addition, 52% didn’t have a device capable of scanning a code.

Nevertheless, there seems to be somewhat of an upsurge in usage of QR codes in Britain. (they’re already very big in Japan) Whether these are just being used as the new fashion or are genuinely useful is another matter.

I admit to being a little baffled and nonplussed by QR codes. The idea that you scan this clever 2D barcode, which takes you to a website, or invites you to send an email, displays text, etc seems to make sense, initially. Content that you wouldn’t be able to immediately access via your device. Fair enough.

The trouble is, the use of QR codes itself often makes little sense. I’ve yet to either be compelled to scan codes on a regular basis and, when I have, the content is a bit pointless or rather annoying.

There are plenty of bad or pointless examples of QR codes that have done the rounds. QR codes on adverts at underground stations that try to take you to an external site seem particularly useless given you can’t get a signal underground.

Equally annoying is the “social media agency” business card I was handed, complete with QR code, that, when scanned, took me on a long and painful journey through a badly designed website to get to the content they were encouraging you to check out.

Shout outs must also go to the feedback survey that didn’t work in Safari on the iPhone and the website that placed a QR code next to a hyperlink to the very same content the QR code took you to.

Chatting to my old friend and colleague, journalist Perri Lewis on Twitter, she advocated uses of the codes and suggested a few uses, such as instructions for furniture manuals (which I liked), strategically placed in magazines for extra content, and links to a portfolio on a CV (although Syd Lawrence did point out that chances are the reader of the CV is probably on a computer in the first place).

Another reasonable use of a QR code came from Barry Pilling on the Off The Wall Post podcast. Barry saw a QR code on a door by an art studio, scanned it and got taken to a site featuring the work.

And that seems to me to sum up what a QR code should do. Offer something that you can’t get easily at any given point in time and shouldn’t have to jump through extra hoops to find. They should be quick, easy and functional.

Unfortunately, many aren’t, and take the user on a frustrating journey that could have been done quicker by using a browser, even on a mobile phone.

There’s plenty of examples of doing QR codes for the sake of doing QR codes. And while it’s often hard to find a consistent, practical use for the codes, the really bad ones are hardly going to encourage an already sceptical or unaware public to adopt wholescale.

Sadly, thinking through how to use a QR code doesn’t stop some marketeers coming up with some hideously pointless ideas around a campaign. Take the following abomination from Betfair.

Yes, that is a QR code shaved into a player’s head. No, I have no idea how you’re meant to scan it (it didn’t seem to work when I paused the video and put my scanner up to the screen).

As an aside, I was at the Bromley game featuring the player with a QR code shaved into his head. It was utterly unnoticeable during the game, possibly because the player was in central midfield, somewhat contradicting Betfair’s comment of hoping to get spectators reaching for their smartphones.

Given that plenty of Bromley fans seemed to be unaware they were taking part in a social media first, I’m not entirely sure how successful you could call this (assuming fans actually knew what a QR code was and what they were meant to do with it).

So, to finish, a quick plea. There is nothing wrong with QR codes, per se, but there’s a lot wrong with their application. And spending time and money to shave a QR code into somebody’s head isn’t clever, it isn’t innovative and it isn’t cool. It’s just a waste of time and makes everybody involved look rather stupid.