@jimboeth not me guv. Some useful features but nothing that's tempted me to go pro. 13 hours ago
@LewisWiltshire Hi Lewis, can I DM you about something relating to Twitter UK's partnerships? 14 hours ago
Putting together slides for my talk on how to sell yourself as an actor using social media http://t.co/GdxzxNks Any tips you want to share? 14 hours ago
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.
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 Certainly it’s a little bit of a concern for Facebook to see 100,000 British users no longer active on the site (as opposed to quitting entirely, which Facebook makes it very hard to do), as global growth, somewhat inevitably, slows down.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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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).
Predictably, as we’re now at the end of the football season, I decided it would be an excellent time to get back into recording the odd football podcast or two.
For twofootedtackle, we headed down the pub for a special two-parter with the Sound Of Football team as we reviewed the season just gone, tackling all the five top leagues in England, Germany, Italy and France and what’s currently happening in MLS and the Russian Premier League. It was originally going to be an hour but we were having so much fun, we extended it to about 90 minutes. It’s best listened to in chunks. Click here to listen to it.
We’re hoping to return next season in slightly less rowdy surroundings, but hey, it’s been a long season and we all needed a drink.
After that, Sound Of Football presenter Chris Oakley whipped out his digital recorder and the six of us spent 40 minutes putting the mess at FIFA to rights on the final Sound Of Football podcast of the season.
Finally, I guested on the 90th Minute podcast, where I waffled on a lot about lower league football (and surprised myself in how much I knew in the process).
I absolutely love Stewart Lee. His Comedy Vehicle on BBC Two is one of the funniest things on TV. He’s also excellent at neatly skewing any particular area he turns his attention to. And his piece one online marketing bod trying to make the Stewart Lee brand more in-tune with social media is hilarious.
Having sat through several meetings and pitches that have gone along similar lines, I’m tempted just to whip out this video rather than spend half an hour explaining why certain social strategies won’t work.
It’s not often that I use this place to hawk out my football-related work (you’d all get bored quickly, I’m sure), but the latest podcast I’ve recorded is about more than just sport.
For the last two months, I’ve been working on a special one-off twofootedtackle podcast on attitudes to homosexuality within football and what the authorities are doing to tackle homophobia in the game.
As somebody who started researching this from a position of knowing very little about the subject, it’s been fascinating to look closer at the topic. I’ve spoken to a range of people, from a member of a gay football team, to a transgender fan, to one of the few sports journalists to write about homophobia in the game. Every single interview has made me think and often reassess my own views. Hopefully it’ll do the same when you listen to it.
The documentary is just under 45 minutes long, so please do stop by twofootedtackle to have a listen. I’ll be really interested to hear what you think.
What you’ve been saying