Gary Andrews

Rather glad that Ben Goldacre chose to write about the “Facebook can give you syphilis” non-story from last week. It seems everybody’s got it in for Facebook at the moment and while there’s a lot you can complain about, some of the ridiculous stories written about the site take bad reporting to a whole new level.

When somebody who struggles with most forms of maths and science at the best of times (ie me) can spot huge flaws in the science and maths and correlations, then chances are the facts behind said story are pretty poor.

It takes a huge leap from a public health official stating that social networking sites are making it easier for people to have casual sex, and thereby increase their chances of catching an STI, to saying that Facebook causes syphillis because Sunderland has one of the highest useages of the site. But linking them together requires such a huge leap of faith and doesn’t take into account the possibility that you have a random cluster.

What annoys me on this, though, isn’t so much the reporting (although bolting on an unrelated report isn’t great), it’s the press release in the first place. These are PR professionals working with public health professionals. You’d have thought one of them might just pick up that the social networking line would be the one that the media would leap on. Or perhaps they intended it to be that way (“Go on doctor, sex it up a bit. Throw in a reference to social networking. That’ll get the buggers biting.”).

Either way, you’d have thought some kind of facts to back up the claim, even if the form of a few notes to the editor, backing up or explaining the statement would have been good. Or, if you can’t, let the professor throw out the idea in interviews, as his own opinion. At least you’re then separating opinion from fact.

As somebody who has, in the past, probably been guilty of spewing out some bad science stories (busy newsroom, no science background, easy press release for a quick bit of copy), it’s not helpful when press releases like this are thrown in our direction. If you decide not to run with the social networking angle, your editor sure as hell will.

I’ve long said that there’s no much thing as adding too much information on science and health press releases, even if you do this as notes and let the release itself be eye-catching.

Going from past experience, the best science or health stories I did was when the press release was clear, explicit and assumed you were a science-idiot (which I was; still am) and laid everything out in as simple a way as possible. And were then very good at explaining and expanding, quickly but clearly, when I rang. Those that didn’t probably led to misunderstandings and undid any work the press release may have done in the first place.

It’s easy to chide journalists for getting science stories badly wrong (and the other stats-bolt on does no favours for this story). But if you’re going to throw garbage into the news system, in the form of a poorly-thought through science-related press release then you’re inevitably going to get garbage.

written by Gary \\ tags: acebook, bad science, science reporting, social networking

Twitter, it’s fair to say, has seen its profile soar in the UK media in the last couple of weeks, thanks, in no small part, to a growing band of celebrities who’ve joined the site.

Now, if you’re a celeb, you’re no one if you’re not on Twitter (ok, not quite. Don’t take this statement literally). Jamie Oliver swung by today. Phil Schofield has been Tweeting away from the set of This Morning [1]. The Daily Mail has started republishing assorted celebrity Tweets as articles. And swathes of new users have started signing up to the site, prompted by the celebrity Twitterers and the media coverage.

All of which is great. After us early adopters banging on for God knows how long, journalists are starting to pick up on its usage and PR and marketing are starting to realise there’s a lot of potential for transparently run Twitter accounts that engage with other users (as opposed to just having a twitterfeed account set up).

Twitter has always been a site that had the potential to tip towards the mainstream and it finally appears to have done so (or at least taking huge strides towards getting there).

But while the attention and new users are great, it’s left the old users – the early adopters – a little confused and, in some cases, uncomfortable.

At the ever-excellent London Bloggers Meetup last night, I was chatting to Steven Waddington (@Wadds) about this. As he’s republished on his blog, my analogy was that Twitter now is a bit like your favourite hidden gem of a pub that’s suddenly become ridiculously popular. All of a sudden, your secret boozer, where you know the names and faces of most people, has become filled with all kinds.

At this point, it all becomes a bit unsettling. Some of the early adopters are now considering whether to stay propping up the bar, or try and find another pub to drink in. Or find a corner of the current pub and ignore the new drinkers. It’s an understandable reaction. Who wouldn’t feel a little put out that their favourite pub that they’ve been raving about to everyone has suddenly become popular.

It’s a balancing act that any new Twitter-related PR activity has to be mindful of. On one hand, the more followers you have, the more you can spread the word of your brand. On the other hand, it’s still many of the early adopters who have the influence, not to mention the ability, to help push, or kill, whatever it is your PR-ing.

In other words, it’s a fine line between making the most of Twitter’s newly found fans and not getting up the noses of those who are already on there.

One thing is certain though: Twitter has now reached the point where it is starting to change (not that it was particularly easy to define in the first place – and it’s even harder now). The slew of celebrities and new users means that the nature of the site and its usage is starting to become a bit different. That isn’t a good or a bad thing. It’s just a difference.

From a work point of view, the emergence of Twitter is very helpful for my area and department. We’ve already used Twitter a bit for campaigns – it’s now going to be a lot more fun, and a lot more easier, to ask celebs and shows to get a Twitter presence.

From a personal point of view, it is a bit strange to see the site explode in popularity. And, yes, it does take a little bit of adjusting to. I guess this must be what Facebook was like when suddenly the floodgates opened and everybody you knew appeared to be joining. And MySpace before that. And so on.

As Wadds says, it’ll be interesting to see what happens once this initial flurry of activity following all the coverage dies down a bit (if, indeed, it dies down at all). It will be interesting to see how many use it as a fad and how many stick with it.

It’s not inconceivable that Twitter becomes a key part of everyday use in the UK. It’s also not inconceivable [2] that everybody will give up on it in a few months. We shall see.

What is does mean is that companies and PRs – both the early adopters and the new wave – will have to adjust their thinking on their use of the microblogging site. Those who tap into the right aspect at the right time will do well. And will probably be followed by a host of imitators who’ll do it not so well.

The next few months will be fascinating. Twitter will be different and we need to embrace this. Let’s grab ourselves a table, pull another beer, and get chatting to the newcomers into our virtual pub. Just as long as they don’t hog the quiz machine all night long.

[1] And is a brilliant example of somebody who ‘gets’ the site. If you were going to pick a perfect Twitter user, @Schofe would be it. 

[2] This has nothing to do with Twitter. I just realised I typed inconceivable twice. And now I’ve got that scene from The Princess Bride stuck in my head.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: celebrities on Twitter, early adopters, growth, Phillip Schofield, pub analogies, social networking, Twitter

Chris from Two Footed Tackle and I had been talking about getting a bunch of football bloggers together at some point.

But rather than set up a blog meetup, Chris has gone one step further and created a Football Blogger social network using Ning (the same rather good platform Ben has used to created meandmybicycle.com).

If you’re a football blogger that occasionally swings by here, do check it out and join. Hopefully at some point we can organise a meetup down the pub, and maybe take in a game or two.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: blogging, Football Blogging, Ning, social networking

A recent Guardian Elevator Pitch features my colleague Ben, and his social networking site for cyclists: meandmybicycle.com.

But this post isn’t just to push his site, it’s also to pick up on one of his comments in the article:

“I do believe that social networks are the next big thing when it comes to specific interests. They are just so dynamic and take traditional outlets like magazines – often the glue for interest groups – onto the next level. The wisdom of the crowds thing really means that niche social nets have tremendous value. “

It’s a view I’d agree with as well. Now that sites like Facebook and MySpace have peaked, some areas of the media talk about them being in decline. They’re not, they’ve just plateaued as you’d expect with any kind of similar service.

But as users find the limitations of the big one-size-catches-all social networks, so they’ll turn elsewhere to networking with people with similar interests. While Facebook is great for keeping up with friends, organising parties, events and other suchlikes, one area it falls down on is the groups for like-minded users to share interests.

The groups that work well are the petition or long-standing fan groups, or the small groups either set up for, say, charity sponsorship (I’m running the marathon, please donate – that kind of thing). The rest tend to muddle around, starting off strongly before petering out, which normally works ok for petitions, but very few of them build a proper community [1]. The rest tend to be inactive personal statements.

Take my own profile: I’m a member of two Exeter City fan groups (and, until I did a mini group cull, a further three) both of which have a similar crossover in terms of membership. In addition, I’m also a ‘fan’ of Exeter City as well as Exeweb, the independent fans forum, which has a healthy social side to it. Unsurprisingly, the same faces pop up in these areas as well. I’m also on the City fans mailing list, Gnet, and subscribed to the official site. [2]

So, now I’ve got over half a dozen different Exeter City fan groups/forums on and off Facebook all of which are slightly different to the others; that is simply too many to realistically keep track off. Exeweb and Gnet are both useful outside of Facebook but they don’t allow me to post videos, blogs, or build a supporter profile, or even create a micro-group (post-match Old Timers drinkers, Birmingham Exiles, that sort of thing).

And that’s where Ben’s site, built using a simple Ning platform, comes in. Ben’s site provides all the social networking sites a niche site needs. You can just stick to the forums, or you can get really involved and video bog from Seesmic, post videos, photos, comment on blogs, or create your own group to complain about the signage in Camden, all while building up your own profile, which isn’t available on a forum, but may not be specific enough on Facebook or Myspace.

If Facebook could sort of their groups, they’d have another powerful tool in their social media behemoth. As it is, if you’re a cyclist or an Exeter City fan, you have to trawl through several groups of low to medium activity that vary in quality and don’t quite give that social media feel you were looking for. Niche networks, while unlikely to be as phenomenally successful as Facebook et al and certainly won’t overtake them, nonetheless fill a gap in the market and some even have the potential to make a bit of money. Why place a biking equipment advert on Facebook when you can target the social network that solely consist of the exact people you’re looking to target?

[1] That isn’t to say the groups can’t be a good PR tool, but you’re still reliant on getting the numbers in.

[2] Interestingly, the two Facebook groups I’ve joined that have a lively and active community are A Cup of Tea Solves Everything and I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue Appreciation Society. They’re an excellent example of how a group can work well.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Ben Ayers, Elevator Pitch, Facebook, Facebook groups, Meandmybicycle, MySpace, niche social networks, Ning, social networking

An excellent post, and interesting discussion, over at David North’s Digital Rant on, in light of the Byron report and plenty of stories in the media, whether or not the government should regulate social networks, and if such regulation is even possible.

My own feeling is that any regulation probably wouldn’t work, because the web moves too fast, and probably wouldn’t solve long-standing problems or fears about the number of children using social network sites.

[Although you could also argue that as these kids have been using the internet all their lives, they're probably a hell of a lot more switched on and web-literate than most of us adults.]

If any social network wants to get a bit of good PR, they should develop/announce new privacy controls, get a bit of positive press, and chances are the media will move on elsewhere if they think the issue’s being sorted, and the government may well forget about it, and find something else equally evil to turn their sites upon.

Quite what privacy controls or codes or conduct or whatever else they could put it place is a moot point. In the comments, I suggested that a privacy tour that explains exactly how privacy settings work and how you can protect yourself and your personal details might be the best interim solution.

David also muses that firstly, parents should take more responsibility, and also that if social networks started from a point of locked down info, that might be another solution. Although he also concedes it would give a greater learning curve so could discourage new users.

One thing is clear: the fact that not even those who work with or around the sites on a regular basis can see an immediate solution means those who don’t (ie Gordon and other politicians) [1] shouldn’t rush in with ill-thought through and knee-jerk regulation and legislation.

I won’t hold my breath.

[1] Perhaps they should put the person who runs 10 Downing Street’s Twitter and Flickr feeds in charge of web strategy. At least it’s somebody who a) knows how to use a Web 2.0 service and b) Seems to understand how Web 2.0 works.

Breath still not being held. 

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Bebo, children and social networks, Facebook, Flickr, internet regulation, online parental control, online privacy, social networking, Twitter

Wat Tyler has a list of subjects that won’t get A level students into Cambridge, along with a bit more about dumbing down. Given that nearly all the A levels I took were on the list [1], I doubt Oxbridge would come calling to me nowadays.

(Although, unless the standard of physics GCSEs has risen significantly over the summer, the sciences hardly inspire confidence for our great young minds.)

As somebody who spent the majority of his A level and university life studying soft subjects, I always feel slightly compelled to defend them. Or rather, the ones I studied, or near-as studied, in this case communication studies and media studies.

The latter may be perceived as soft. In some cases the syllabus and teaching methods probably are softer than they should be. But it doesn’t mean that media studies isn’t important. On the contrary, taught well media studies could be an important and useful subject for those who chose to take it.

The media is a wonderful and vague area, compassing everything from television to radio to newspapers, magazines, mobile technology, iPods, the music industry, blogs, podcasts, downloads and the internet in general to name but a few. The media is all pervasive in today’s society: our lives are surrounding by media of all sorts and, like it or not, the media will continue to play a key role in shaping the world around us, be it traditional mainstream media, online technologies, or a mixture of new and traditional [2].

So, if something is as all-consuming as the media, doesn’t it deserve to be studied? And if there are certain phenomenons occurring within this field, don’t these also deserve to be studied? And if the media is going to play an even more key role in the future of today’s teenagers lives, doesn’t that also deserve to be studied? [3]

Take Facebook, and social networking sites in general, which were the buzzword online of 2007, and have become an essential part of everyday life for some people. At university level, social networks, blogs, and other such internet phenomenons deserve to be studied: if something becomes successful or has a major impact on our lives, it’s worth asking why. And depending on what these studies produces, and what’s taught in modules on blogging and Facebooking, it’s not inconceivable such topics could filter into A level syllabuses sooner rather than later. If this enhances student’s understanding of the world they inhabit, and inspires them further, this can only be a good thing.

Of course, there are two things needed to pull up a soft subject such as media studies: a good syllabus and a good teacher. A quick look at a basic syllabus for media studies shows things haven’t moved on too much since I was at college nearly ten years ago. Certainly, more recognition of the impact media has on our lives would be a good thing. And I’m still to be persuaded on how shooting a quick short will enhance understanding of the media. But even so, there’s still much in there that can be used, applied and turn the teenagers into better informed citizens and consumers.

Media studies shouldn’t be seen as a better or worse option than more traditional subjects; all have their merits. It also shouldn’t be pushed as a soft option, or used by schools to massage figures. But if you’ve got a teenagers genuinely interested in the media then there’s no reason to discourage them from taking it. Similarly, if you’ve got a teen who has no clue what they’re interested in, it’s a case of directing them towards the course they’d get most stimulus out of.

This isn’t to say I’m a great fan of the plethora of media studies available at degree level – if anything there’s a few too many of them around, and they do their bit to keep wages in the sector reasonably low. But that’s another discussion for another blog post.

One final thought: Ten years ago, Film Studies was by far the hardest A level I took – I found it much more difficult than Philosophy. But it was also probably the most interesting. This was down in no small part to the inspirational teacher I had, who cut no slack to those who saw it as a way to coast through college and pushed us all hard, but if you were interested and keen to learn, she’d go out of her way to help you go that bit further. An the syllabus included elements of business, economics, and history among other aspects. It didn’t just view film in its own bubble, it took into account the wider effects of cinema. Result: not only did it increase my appreciation of film, it also taught me stuff I didn’t know about the world beyond that, and has proved useful from time to time on a practical level, which is what any good GCSE or A Level should be doing.

[1] Philosophy being the one that doesn’t appear. I’m not entirely sure whether that makes me more or less of a soft-subject man. I did, however, get a lot better in arguing and could throw out references to Aristotle, Descartes et al in an effort to make me look intelligent.

[2] Although it really is time to stop referring to line and mobile media as new media. It’s been around for long enough and is, by and large, nearly fully integrated into the MSM.

[3] This is an argument you could justifiably apply to other subjects such as ooh, I dunno, economics and physics, two subjects I’d love to see have a broader appeal, as they, like media, both explain how things work. I’d argue economics should really be pushed as an option at GCSE level, as the basics could easily be explained to a 15-year-old. And it ties up nicely with media studies as well.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: A Levels, film studies, GCSEs, media studies, physics GCSE, social networking, studying Facebook