Gary Andrews

Writing about the companies who email bloggers offering cash for links from blogs is long overdue – I regularly get requests from similar companies offering cash for ‘natural’ links in blog posts – and it’s a practice I have no time for, but editorial trustworthiness is only part of the issue.

In fact, the strangest thing about Gawker calling out a rather iffy link-pimping organisation was the lack of mention of SEO in the piece.

Hamilton Nolan is right when he says inserting undisclosed paid for links into blog posts is an unethical betrayal of the readers’ trust (similar to undisclosed advertorial), especially when it’s done without editorial consent. Transparency is linking is, to me, equally as important as other forms of transparency in journalism and blogging.

But, even from as well-read a site as Gawker, a text link will only drive a certain level of traffic. And the traffic is not the issue, mainly, it’s about SEO and attempting to game Google. A link from a trusted or authoritative site as Gawker will push said site higher up search rankings (to put it rather simply).

I’m mildly surprised we haven’t seen more of this sort of thing. Links in online news stories from trusted sites are, in some cases, worth more than the articles themselves. If a website is less than transparent, they have the potential to earn a lot of money from link trading. Hopefully discoveries of this sort will be highlighted regularly to discourage underhand linking.

Linking is also a battle I’ve had in the past to convince other parts of companies or organisations of the importance of linking to relevant content or partner organisations. It’s not just important to credit articles, but it’s also important to link.

To some journalists or other areas of the company, a link may just be that. For those working online, links are an important and valuable tool that carry real currency in their medium. Content may be king, but hyperlinks are kingmakers.

written by Gary \\ tags: Gawker, hyperlinking, links, online content, SEO

Words I never thought I’d write: Monday’s episode of Made In Chelsea contained something genuinely interesting, albeit something not in the programme itself.

At the start of the programme, there was an ident pushing viewers towards checking into the programme on Get Glue. It’s the first time I’ve seen the social entertainment network pushed in conjunction with a mainstream TV show, although Channel 4 did announce a partnership back in June.

Get Glue is, as Michael Litman says:

“…billed as a social network for entertainment. Think of it like Foursquare but for things you’re doing and not physical places. But it’s a similar mechanic. You can check in to TV, music and films and get badges and rewards to keep you doing it.

And just like that this whole social TV thing elevates itself to new levels. The last thing I can remember checking in to using Get Glue was the Royal Wedding. Thousands were doing the same too.”

Get Glue is certainly big in America. Logging into Get Glue last night (I’ve had an account for a while), Made In Chelsea was the 5th highest trending programme on Get Glue. It was also the only British programme in the trending list, bar Doctor Who, which was listed under BBC America, although it didn’t air during American primetime.

The American aspect is why it was a little surprising to see it on Made In Chelsea. Get Glue is very geared towards an American market, which is one of the reasons I’ve not really stuck with the service – it doesn’t feel as if it offers much for me as a UK TV viewer at the moment.

Even so, it will be interesting to see where Get Glue go with the activity check-in route. There’s the usual stickers and badges, but as we’ve seen with Foursquare, this in itself isn’t really a compelling reason to stick with the service and users need something else to stop them drifting off.

There’s also the huge backchannel that is Twitter. The microblogging service might not have set out to become a giant TV chatroom but it certainly ticks that box – just check the UK trending hashtags during primetime. Do users really want a second channel, just to check in to a programme.

That said, there are many social media projects aimed at TV bubbling under and there’s no doubt a lot of the main networks are looking at the best way to tap into this. One of my longstanding predictions is that social TV will be one of the next big advances in the social sphere. There is definitely an audience, as Twitter and Get Glue are showing, but it’s a question of finding the right service to hook people in.

Ironically, this could come from Facebook. The social media behemoth may be trying to ape aspects of Google+, but some of the predictions around F8 seem directly targeted at stealing Get Glue’s thunder. And this makes sense. People already use Facebook to talk about TV and are getting used to checking in with Facebook Places. A Get Glue-style service would be a logical and, potentially, well-used step.

It would be interesting to see what numbers Get Glue is doing in the UK, and how successful the E4 experiment is. There’s definitely a hint of the future there, at the start of Made In Chelsea. Whether that future belongs to Get Glue is another question entirely.

written by Gary \\ tags: E4, Facebook, Get Glue, Made In Chelsea, social tv

At Exeter St David’s train station last week, I picked up something I’ll never be able to buy again – a daily copy of the local paper, the Express and Echo. It was just under a month ago that the somewhat sad news that my hometown’s paper would become a weekly rather than daily publication.

I say sad for two reasons. Firstly because it’s never fun to see local journalism cut back, even if the economic climate is heading that way.

But it’s also sad because this has been coming for a while, largely due to continually bad decisions from the Echo’s owners, Northcliffe.

I’m not saying that the daily Echo’s demise was preventable – it may well have been inevitable no matter what – but the paper could have been given much more of a fighting chance.

Even when I moved away from Devon, I made a point of picking up the Echo whenever I returned to visit friends and family. The past few times have been painful to read.

The last few Echos I’ve purchased have been a shell of the brash, confident publication that was happy to cause trouble for local politicians and had an instinctive connection with the communities it served.

What was in front of me was like seeing a once-proud athlete towards the end of his life. The only surprise about the Echo going weekly is it didn’t happen sooner.

Let me declare my feelings. I am an unashamed fan of local media done well. That is, after all, my background.

Yes, I’m well aware of the foibles and failures of local newspapers. They can be unnecessarily hyperbolic and trivial, often in the same news story. They can sometimes become parodies of themselves.

They could, as I found out from speaking to various focuses of the subjects of their stories, occasionally play somewhat fast and loose. At my old office, we had an file of some of their worst hits, including one story several experienced journalists were amazed they didn’t get pulled up on contempt charges.

But despite all this, much of the Echo is recalled with fondness. They were terrier-like in holding local politicians to account. When a big story broke, their coverage was never less than impressive. And they knew how to serve the community and readership.

Yes, some stories may have seemed mundane but locals from outlying areas really appreciated the coverage given to these smaller stories.

Given the Echo’s patch took in the regional capital city, seaside towns, rural market towns and sleepy villages, their ability to strike a balance with these readers was impressive.

When I was much younger and dreamt of going into journalism, at that point I always considered the Echo the paper I wanted to work for. And 20 years ago, it had a well-liked reputation with its readership.

Even as recently as six years ago, the Echo was a pretty impressive regional paper. It had a confidence and swagger about it. Yes, that also brought out some of the worst aspects, as detailed above, but it also brought out the best.

Working in a competitor (of sorts) newsroom at the same time, I would frequently roll my eyes, but would frequently be impressed with their scoops and determination to reflect and be a heart of the community they served.

Those qualities have seriously declined in recent years. Journalists were cut back. Fewer reporters meant a restricted ability to embed with the community. It became easier to spot the press releases in the paper.

It made sense, financially, to re-use the same reports from the sister Devon-wide Western Morning News. But this paper served a different audience, and it became harder to find distinctive news in the Echo as a result.

And then there’s the web, something regional media companies never seemed to get or be prepared to get.

For a period, the Echo went big into video, posting clips of any and every story, plus doing a news in 60 seconds, featuring cutaways to the headline in the paper.

It wasn’t particularly well done or thought through. A couple of people I knew there said they were given very little training. But at least they tried something, although it didn’t seem hard to see how this could have been much more focused, and relevant to their audience. And it asked a lot of print journalists to learn a new skill and do it well, with a minimum of training.

But at least it was better than how the web is currently being treated. The pages are, astonishingly, updated from a central location in a different county on the other side of the country.

News is often not uploaded until 10am. Sports reports, one of the key selling points of a local paper, are often uploaded up to two days after the game. By this stage, anybody interested will have found the news elsewhere.

There is little incentive for readers to discover or return to their website on a daily, even weekly basis. It is as if this part of the paper has been deliberately left to die.

Perhaps a weekly Echo will see the paper regain some of its swagger. Perhaps I’m optimistic but I think a daily could work in Exeter. Just not a daily in the current form. And they may need to be more innovative elsewhere.

But, going offline, it’s the local communities who will be hit the most by this. The Office of National Statistics shows that 23% of the UK population have no internet at home. In Devon and Somerset, that accounts for around 750,000 households. In the most rural areas of these counties, the number is, I would wager, even higher.

For the outlying villages in Devon, this means they are even further cut off from the news. One of the strengths of the Echo was balancing the ultra local with the big stories, and knowing each of these communities. What’s more, these were read and appreciated. Will that continue? It’s not as if many rural, elderly households can log online for their information.

Local businesses may also feel the pinch, initially. These small-to-medium size businesses probably don’t have the PR budget to go all out on a campaign, can’t go beyond a certain level of advertising, and often rely on local papers to print their good news stories. Will there be space for these?

I say initially, though, because for businesses there’s generally an opportunity to be innovative and less reliant on the local press.

But the local events, such as fundraisers or community days, may seriously struggle to compete for attention. Granted, these aren’t exactly the hardest-hitting news stories, but they do serve the community.

Sports fans and clubs wanting local reporting will also be badly served. That’s not to say there’s not alternatives online, but local sport is a staple of a local paper, and a key reason for purchase.

How many of those will discontinue reading it because the results are a week late? And how will the clubs reach out to attract new fans or members? The Echo says the coverage will be even better. Many will be skeptical.

Time will tell what effect a weekly Echo will have on Exeter, and East and Mid Devon. It may revitalise the paper. Or it may be a large step towards the eventual collapse. In the immediate term, the main losers are the readers.

written by Gary \\ tags: Exeter, Express and Echo, local news, local newspapers

A week ago, I was sitting of a boat marvelling at the beauty of the Norwegian fjords, and was planning on writing a light-hearted post on here on what a fantastic country Norway is.

I still think it’s a fantastic country but after the events of the past few days, writing something along those lines doesn’t quite feel appropriate.

What I will say is Bergen is one of the most beautiful cities I have ever visited and the Norwegians I met were some of the most friendly, fantastic people I met, and many new friendships were formed over a (very expensive) Norwegian beer or two.

I’d urge anyone to visit Norway. It is a stunning, amazing country.

Which makes the events of the last few days even harder to comprehend. I’ve never felt so relaxed or safe as I did in Norway. That somebody would want to shatter the idyl of one of the most peaceful and beautiful countries I’ve visited is difficult to understand. I’m just thankful the Oslo-based friends I made are ok.

It’s why, when the initial news of the bombing broke, I assumed, wrongly, it wasn’t a homegrown bomber. I’d been aware, if not fully understanding why, that al-Qaeda had made threats against the country. I was wrong.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on Norwegian politics or global affairs. All I know is this one person is not representative of the kind, friendly tolerant nation I visited a week ago (just as one Muslim bomber isn’t representative of his or her religion).

And I hope that this act won’t change those kind, friendly tolerant values that define Norway. Because that would mean he achieved his goal.

My thoughts are with the country and all those affected.

written by Gary \\ tags: Norway, Oslo

Monday’s Evening Standard contained a rather curious feature suggesting that Facebook was declining in popularity, while profiling the social products that could take Facebook’s place.

I say curious, because among those suggested were Instagram, the addictive fast-growing photo sharing tool, and Foursquare. Yes, Foursquare.

I suppose much depends on your definition of waning. Certainly it’s a little bit of a concern for Facebook to see 100,000 British users no longer active on the site (as opposed to quitting entirely, which Facebook makes it very hard to do), as global growth, somewhat inevitably, slows down.

But then when the company is still growing in emerging markets, has 700 million users worldwide, this number pales somewhat.

Secondly, it’s difficult to tell if this this dip is significant or the start of a long-term loss of active users, although it is the second month active users has dropped. The number of users no longer active may well decrease next month, and could be attributed to natural churn.

What the article, in a roundabout way, may do, is suggest that Facebook users use the site differently these days.

Proclaiming that Facebook is dying and a new network will take its place still feel wide of the mark.

Yes, you can point to Facebook eclipsing MySpace, but this was in the early days of social networks and before Facebook became all encompassing. It’s telling that most social sites or apps offering something that Facebook doesn’t, still offer connectivity with Facebook.

What the article does show, though, is the niche nature of the “challengers” and this is probably Facebook’s biggest weakness.

Facebook has shown us the value of browsing the web socially and, for many, has become a daily or weekly way of keeping up with friends and a social life, and for big-to-medium brands it’s a great tool. But when it comes to engaging in niche areas, the one size fits all approach that’s normally so effective for Facebook, falls down somewhat.

For small to small-to-small medium interests, websites, brands, etc, Facebook is a good news feed and traffic generator but may not necessarily be the best place to grow the community.

Certainly off Facebook you can see burgeoning communities develop, often through engagement on Twitter, as these communities look for the most effective way to get together (even if this does involve connecting to Facebook on occasions).

Facebook’s groups and fanpages are quite disparate and don’t necessarily make the easiest communities, which are often best when they grow organically.

That’s not to say it can’t, because there are some excellent groups, fan pages and communities, but if you’re really interested in something, chances are Facebook is a conduit, a means to an end, rather than that end itself.

Of the other sites profiled by the Standard as contenders for Facebook’s crown, many fulfill a service that is perhaps lacking on Facebook, or just does it better (and it’s a bit odd to see Google Places on the list).

Essentially, if we’re looking beyond Facebook – and the site will have a lifespan, although I don’t imagine it’ll collapse quite as badly or as quickly as previous competitors – we need to be thinking completely beyond what Facebook currently is.

It’s unlikely that we’ll see another social network, along the likes of Facebook and MySpace emerge. Like it or loathe it, Facebook is so firmly entrenched in our lives it would be difficult to totally shift.

But the new generation of smartphones and tablets may give us something social that we’ve not yet thought of that becomes as much a part of our day as Facebook has been. If that sounds vague, remember, 10 years ago we didn’t have any concept of Facebook or why it would become so important to us.

What’s most likely is you’ll see something new that becomes as useful as Twitter and as addictive and socially necessary as Facebook, but does something completely different, and sits neatly alongside them both, threatening their market share but also co-existing.

After all, Twitter didn’t kill or even dent Facebook. It’s unlikely Foursquare or Instagram will do either. They’re different beasts altogether, and fulfil different needs. And, ultimately, no matter how cool something is, users will go where their friends are. Because nobody likes talking alone online.

written by Gary \\ tags: Evening Standard, Facebook, Foursquare, Instagram, social networks

As friends and colleagues will testify, I hate the word viral with a passion. I’ve lost count of the number of press releases I’ve received saying, “We’ve produced a viral.” No you haven’t you’ve produced a video that you’re hoping lots of people will watch. And as for being asked, “Can we get this going viral,” the answer, obviously, depends on the strength of content.

But when a viral’s done well, it’s hard not to be impressed and the new viral marketing campaign for the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, is very cool indeed.

Slash Film sums up the story nicely:

“Fans had to work Friday morning to reveal the first official image of Bane from The Dark Knight Rises. Along with Thursday’s unexciting press release announcing the beginning of production on Christopher Nolan‘s highly anticipated third part in his Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises, Warner Bros. also launched the film’s official website www.thedarkknightrises.com. Originally, if you clicked over there, it was just a black image with some really weird chanting. A fan was able to look at the visual spectrum of that audio file and in it was…a Twitter Hashtag. You can’t make this stuff up. The hashtag, #thefirerises, when tweeted, slowly revealed, pixel by pixel, some kind of image on the site.”

Very clever. Not only does it get the fan community interested, it gives them a reason to Tweet the hashtag, as there’s a reward at the end of it, even if that reward is just an early advance publicity shot. It’s a win-win situation that clearly knows the audience it’s aimed at and, playing to that, lets the community take a slight bit of control.

But then Warner Brothers have an excellent reputation for this sort of thing, so you’d expect nothing less. It’s clever, inventive and shows a level of understanding way beyond just sticking a video up on YouTube.

And it works. I’m a big Batman fan and, while I know it’s just a picture, it’s Bane! Bane! You have no idea how excited this has made my inner geek.

written by Gary \\ tags: Bane, Batman, The Dark Knight Rises, viral marketing, Warner Brothers

Last week the comedian Richard Herring tweeted a firm but polite message to his followers about requests for retweets and why he doesn’t retweet many links people ask him to.

“I am afraid I get asked to RT so much stuff for charity or whatever that I have to refuse all requests or my timeline’d be nothing but,” he said, before adding, “Also if all charity stuff gets RT then it would have no impact. Like to save it up for causes I am involved with.”

A fair enough explanation, it seems, although judging by the exchanges that followed, not all of his followers agreed.

Requests for retweets is something I’ve noticed a rise in lately, whether it’s retweets from people I follow with a message such as “Hi @celebrityorkeyinfluencer, I’m running this race in memory of my mum, please RT,” or “Hi @writerorjournalist, I’ve written a piece o the history of Eintracht Frankfurt. Any chance of a RT?”

Even I get a fair few requests for both charity and article retweets and I really wouldn’t consider myself particularly influential (indeed, if you go by my Klout score I sit somewhere between the invisible man and a chocolate kettle in terms of usefulness).

Given the amount I get, I can only imagine the volume of requests fired at celebrities or well-known tweeters and, in the politest possible way, it’s probably a bit of a drag to go through them all.

I’ll make an effort, generally, to read most pieces or requests fired at me, but I won’t always retweet, often because I don’t feel it’s appropriate or I don’t find it interesting enough. It’s my feed and, sympathetic as I am to a lot of the requests, I also like to maintain some form of quality or brand control (although those of you who follow me may disagree given some of the rather random stuff I tweet).

But what of those requesting the RT? It’s clearly important to them, but is replying to a large number of celebrities or influencers the best way to go about it?

In the real world, if somebody kept running up to you and constantly asking you to tell others about their views on a topic or ask for money for charity, you’d probably get fed up quite quickly or tell them to sod off.

Kate Bevan, who has written an excellent summing up of why she doesn’t retweet, says some of these requests can amount to little more than chugging.

For those who follow the habitual retweet requester as well, it can get a bit irritating, especially if you follow the same people. It’s a horribly delicate balance – on one hand, you want as many people as possible to see your link.

On the other, it’s a bit irritating for your followers and for the person you’re asking for a RT from, even a bit rude, especially if it’s something they don’t want to tweet but feel uncomfortable not doing so.

One of Twitter’s strong points is the lack of rules. Everybody uses the service in a slightly different way and gets something different back out of it. But, gradually, accepted etiquette has developed. And in terms of general politeness, I’d say that continually pestering for a RT goes against this (even if it’s really not my place to say).

But it is, as mentioned, a balancing act, especially when it comes to flagging your content to the right people. I will @ or Direct Message selected people if, and only if, I think they may find it interesting. And I’ll certainly never ask for a RT – if they think the link is good enough, chances are they’ll RT without being asked.

That said, if you’re just after hits and traffic, then the scattergun approach will probably increase your page views, but in the longer term, how many of those who’ve retweeted will continue to do so?

I’d argue that rather than adopt a scattergun approach with key influencers and celebrities asking for RTs, it’s worth taking time to build relationships with them, replying and interacting to their other Tweets.

That way, any occasional request comes across less mercenary (“oh, you’re famous or influential, you’ll send me traffic) and more friendly and meaningful (“I know we’ve chatted a fair bit on here in the past, so I thought you might be interested in this link.”). It may not work every time, but building up a relationship is a lot better than an unsolicited request.

Ultimately, somebody’s Twitter feed is, as much as anything, a reflection of themselves and their own personal brand. And just as a news website wouldn’t post an unverified story that’s been sent in by a reader, so it’s up to an individual Tweeter to curate content for their own individual feeds, and some of the RT requests just won’t fit.

As Richard Herring said, retweeting every charity-related request will diminish the impact of the causes he puts a lot of effort into – and that’s just one example of a tweet request not fitting a specific brand.

That’s not to say there aren’t times and places for asking for a retweet but they are, I think, few and far between.

Now, if you could all retweet this post, I’d be very grateful.

written by Gary \\ tags: relationship building, retweeting, Twitter, Twitter etiquette