Marketing Technology

Verifiability, not truth

Niall Cook — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:01:00 GMT

I got into a discussion over lunch today about the over-reliance of Wikipedia as a factual source of information. I pointed to the fact that verifiability is one of the online encyclopedia's core content policies, but how "verifiable" are some of the sources used on Wikipedia?

To answer this question, you first need to agree on the definition of verifiable. Having looked at both British and American dictionaries, the key element seems to be something that is capable of being tested by experimentation or observation. But is this the same as the truth?

Well according to most thesauruses (or should that be thesauri) the antonym of verifiable is falsifiable, so my conclusion is that it is. This is further confirmed by the definition of the stem word, verify, which is widely agreed to mean to prove, determine or test the truth.

Back then to Wikipedia's verifiability content policy. Lo and behold, right at the top of the page we see:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

So the Wikipedia definition of verifiable does not include any test of truth.

But wait. There's something else in that extract from Wikipedia's verifiability policy. According to them, the test of whether something is verifiable or not is whether readers are able to check that material added has already been published by a "reliable source", a term that Wikipedia further defines as "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In a footnote to this the word "source" has three related meanings to Wikipedia: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. It goes on to state that "all three affect reliability."

On the basis of this information, I have no option but to concede to my lunch companion that Wikipedia is indeed over-used as a source of fact.

Do you agree?

Is Google.com your company's real home page?

Niall Cook — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:22:00 GMT

Forrester Research analyst Jeremiah Owyang thinks so.

I'm not convinced though - his hypothesis only holds water when people use Google to look for a company. So if 50-60% of the web traffic to your company's site comes via Google (as ours does) then it's a fair point - but only for that proportion. You can pretty much guarantee that the first page of search results for your brand name on Google will shape someone's perception about your company - the job of your web site is then to either reinforce or attempt to change that perception.

I have been banging on for some time now about the need for companies to invest as much attention - and budget - on the 99.999999% of the Internet that they don't control as the remaining 0.000001% that they do (i.e. their website).

The examples in Jeremiah's post simply serve to reinforce that view.

Google's reputation opportunity in the Viacom case

Niall Cook — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:17:00 GMT

Google receives its fair share of criticism over how it exploits the personal data of the users of its search and other services, so what a refreshing change to see it defending privacy rights in its tussle with Viacom.

The entertainment company has won a legal battle that will see Google disclosing the usage data for its video-sharing service YouTube, as Viacom tries to prove "the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing video" on the site.

Regardless of the legal rights and wrongs - or why Viacom needs user logins and IP addresses when they only want to compare the popularity of original videos with those that feature copyright material - Google has an opportunity here to prove to its critics that it really respects its users' private information. By publicly standing up for privacy in the face of Viacom's demands it could change perceptions about its motives for good.

For the benefit of internet freedom, I really hope it will.

Enterprise 2.0 - It's Here!

Niall Cook — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:34:00 GMT

UPDATED 6 July 2008 - If you are in any doubt as to whether the book is relevant to you, I invite you to download the intro and first chapter (820Kb PDF) and decide for yourself.

I arrived back from a very relaxing vacation to a small package from my publisher containing nothing less than 6 presentation copies of Enterprise 2.0, hot off the press.

The official publication date has been confirmed as 21 July, but I’ve already heard from someone who pre-ordered that theirs arrived yesterday.

I’m now in the process of making sure the key people involved get either a hard copy or the eBook version to thank them for their contributions.

If you want to purchase your own copy, you can do so at the publisher’s site or Amazon (UK or US). Alternatively, if you're interested in a bulk order to give to your clients, staff, senior executives, conference delegates or otherwise, drop me a line and I'll organise a discount for you.

PR Spam and Enterprise 2.0

Niall Cook — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:51:00 GMT

So far I've resisted the temptation to get involved in the debate around "PR spam" as I don't think journalists and agencies will ever see eye to eye on the issue. That said, my interest in the topic was reignited today as I listened to a panel discussion at the Social Media Influence conference in London, entitled Putting the 'Public' back into Public Relations.

Let me make a few observations:

Spam is spam. It doesn't matter where it originates from (or appears to originate from - this is important). It could be from a PR agency, a journalist, or someone offering you a 2008 Swiss Rolex, a medical doctor list from America or a no test, no class Bacheelor/MasteerMBA/Doctoraate dip1oma, VALID in all countries. Calling it "PR Spam" is like accusing all watch sellers of being spammers because you get one message from Rolex Watches with a reply address someone in the Ukraine.
I do not agree with the response of some journalists with blogs of publishing the email addresses or domains of those they consider to have "spammed" them. In fact, the latter is worse in my book as it unfairly tarnishes the reputation of everyone in an organisation as a result of the actions of one individual.
That said, they - like everyone else - should be able to ignore, delete or block emails from people they consider to have abused their inboxes.
PR agencies have a responsibility to educate their employees on the basic principles of email etiquette. They also have the power to trap mass mailings that pass through their email servers.
Clients also have a responsibility to listen to their agencies when they advise against sending mass emails to journalists or bloggers. Even if the list is properly targeted, it is still going to demonstrate a contempt of the influencers being communicated with.
The media list brokers like Cision and Vocus also have a responsibility. They need to ensure that each individual in their databases has a) opted in, b) been verified and ideally also c) the ability to manage their own data and preferences.
Finally, journalists and bloggers also have a responsibility to tell people how they want to be communicated with - and if they don't. I personally accept that putting my opinions online means I am inviting comment and contact. If I don't tell people not to contact me, I don't see why I should be annoyed when they do.

The reason I was there was to moderate a panel discussion on social media In the Workplace & Behind the Firewall (and promote my book, of course - if you want a great pre-publication discount drop me a line). Struan Robertson (www.out-law.com), Lee Bryant (Headshift), Richard Dennison (BT) and Ruth Ward (Allen & Overy) debated such topics as how to get started with social software in the enterprise and whether or not companies should block Facebook. The summary of the session goes something like this:

Just do it!
Don't spend lots of money doing it
Experiment, don't pilot
Don't do it on your own
Hire intelligent people
Measure outcomes not output

Thanks to the guys at Custom Communication for putting on such a good show.

A brighter shade of green

Niall Cook — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:21:00 GMT

The green movement is a little off-colour, according to research from pollster Ipsos Mori. In the UK at least, environmental concerns reached a peak in January 2007. A year on they have dropped by more than half, replaced by increasing concern over the economy.

Along a similar vein, the International Herald Tribune reports that the market for clean, green technology is showing signs of overheating, too. It must be the greenhouse effect.

At a time when I am actively doing more than I ever have before, this comes as quite a surprise to me. Maybe people are less concerned because they are now starting to do something about it?

>Whatever it is, I think the whole "green" space is now hotting up rather than overheating. It's certainly in no danger of meltdown. And I think it's down to the increasing influence of "bright" greens, the latest shade of green being used to categorise different types of "greens".

Dark greens believe that environmental problems are part of industrialised capitalism that can only be solved by political action.

Light greens see protecting the environment as a personal responsibility, a lifestyle choice. (They are not to be confused with "lite green", used to describe companies engaged in greenwashing - misleading consumers about the environmental practices of the company.)

But now we have the bright greens, who believe that better designs, technologies and social innovations are the means to make the required changes in society.

I'd like to think I'm sitting between the latter (and lighter) two at the moment. I don't know what that's called on the colour chart, but it sure is a good time to be green right now. And it's a damn sight more interesting than worrying about an economy you can't fix.

Is this really the press release of the future?

Niall Cook — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:21:00 GMT

Harvard Business Online's Scott Berinato reckons he's found the press release of the future, in the form of the website announcing the proposed merger between Delta and Northwest Airlines.

I think I get his point, but for those of us interested in finding new ways to carve up news into manageable, meaningful chunks, I'd have to disagree with his conclusion. What he has actually identified is that companies have to find new ways of communicating their ambitions, opinions and positions in a complex media landscape. The one-dimensional press release just doesn't have a place in the current attention flow.

What Delta/Northwest have done is simply the kind of smart thinking that is required of any organisation that needs to communicate quickly with a wide range of people. The future of the press release it is not.

Take a look at the site and let me know if you agree.

How your lawyers can damage your brand

Niall Cook — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:51:00 GMT

By sending cease and desist letters to companies who have an ex-litigation laywer as president:

Blue Jeans Cable Strikes Back

My favourite line:

It looks like when you sent this letter, you were operating on the premise that I am not smart enough to see through your deceptions or sophisticated enough to intelligently evaluate your claims; shame on you. You are required, as a matter of legal ethics, to display good faith and professional candor in your dealings with adverse parties, and you have fallen miserably short of your ethical responsibilities.

Meow!

(via Jeff Nolan)

Restrictions on Commercial Communications Take Force in May

Niall Cook — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:01:00 GMT

'Seeders' and buzz marketers beware. Next month sees the introduction of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act in the UK.

Under the legislation, which comes into force on 26 May 2008, strict regulations will be placed on commercial communications. One particular clause will make the following a criminal offence:

Falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for the purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer.

According to the IPA, this will catch marketing activities such as:

seeding positive messages about a brand in a blog without stating that the message has been created by or on behalf of the brand;
using buzz marketing specialists to communicate with consumers in social situations without disclosing they are acting for the brand;
seeding viral ads on the internet that implies you are a simple [sic] member of the public.

The social media naysayers are already out proclaiming this as the death of blogger relations, but they obviously haven't read it properly. The Act is designed to protect consumers from those who do not disclose their true identity (such as hiding behind a pseudonym), not marketers who are transparent and honest about their motives behind building online relationships.

So most PR agencies will have nothing to worry about (I can't speak for the advertising agencies) as long as they follow some of the de facto guidance abundant online.

I think it does illustrate the compromise that marketers have to make though. If - as a consumer - I genuinely recommend a product that happens to be my client, am I really not allowed to tell people? If not, isn't that an infringement of my human rights?

My main criticism of this legislation is therefore that it will have no effect because it is going to be impossible to police (or prove guilt), which is a shame.

April Fools Day: Marketing Opportunity or Not?

Niall Cook — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:01:44 GMT

We're always asking brands to be more human, so what better way for them to do this than play an April Fool on us?

I saw a story this morning, which I assume originated from BMW, for a new model with technology that gave dogs who choose to relieve themselves up the owners prized possession an electric shock. By storing energy from braking and converting it to electricity, the peeing pooch gets a few volts up his own big end.

I personally found it mildly amusing, and I guess brands should be applauded for making us laugh. BMW could have made it even more interesting by integrating the piece with their website though.

But can every brand be as witty? Scanning the rapidly changing list of April Fool's pranks on Wikipedia, most of them look pretty tame and make me wonder whether the companies involved should have even bothered.

What do you think? Is April Fool's day a marketing opportunity or a reputation risk?

You May Prefer to Give us a Call... Part 2

Niall Cook — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:41:15 GMT

If you enjoyed my last post, you'll love this one.

I've been trying to transfer my electricity supply to another supplier since I moved into my house last September. A catalogue of errors on the part of the incumbent supplier mean that it has only just happened - or so I thought (but that's a different story involving an erroneous transfer - it is as painful as it sounds).

The situation is further complicated by the fact that I have two supplies at the same address - one for a self-contained annex next door. With the first transfer out of the way, I started the second. Online, of course, bound to be the quickest way right? Wrong!

Whilst trying to provide the supply number yesterday, I was informed by the new supplier (Scottish Power) that applications they receive online take around 7 days to enter their system. Yes, you heard right, 7 (seven) days. Apparently "they have to go through several departments". And even then they are only flagged as "pending".

However, if I call up and apply over the phone my account will be set up straight away!

So the moral of the story is that if you're thinking of transferring your electricity supply to Scottish Power, you may prefer to give them a call. If, like me, you've already completed an online application within the last seven days, don't worry. You can just apply over the phone instead and this will automatically cancel the "pending" online application when it eventually hits their systems!

You May Prefer to Give us a Call...

Niall Cook — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:26:29 GMT

I should have known better than to attempt to use public transport the first day after a bank holiday weekend. In the UK, they're the times when demand is high yet supply decreases as a result of "engineering works". Over Christmas there was an outcry when these engineering works overran (not an uncommon scenario), effectively leaving those who needed to get into work stranded. After that, the train operators vowed that "lessons will be learnt" and it wouldn't happen again.

So it was with some trepidation that I braved the snow and ice on our road to drive to the station and pick up my usual train into London. After an hour I had made it one stop (usually a 15 minute hop), to be informed that just about everything into London was suspended. To cut a long story short, I ended up back at home.

What has all this got to do with marketing technology, I hear you ask (no, really I can).

Well, rather than spend an hour on hold trying to get the cost of my ticket refunded, I sent an email to their customer service address, only to get the following automated reply:

Thank you for contacting XXXX [removed to protect the innocent] Customer Services, we have received your email and we aim to get back to you as soon as possible.

Good so far.

Our target is to answer 90% of our contacts within 6 working days.

Hmm. That's over a week, but I guess they get busy.

However, if your contact is urgent you may prefer to give us a call on 0845 600 7245 mentioning that you have already sent an email.

Who writes these things? So what you're saying is that you're giving my email enquiry a lower priority than telephone calls and - having gone to the trouble of putting everything down in the email - I now have to spend an hour on hold just to tell someone that I've already sent an email?

I wonder what their response would be?

What do you think?

Niall Cook — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:48:53 GMT

Flicking through the TV channels last week, I came across the following sketch from That Mitchell and Webb Show that I first heard on radio (as always, a much funnier medium).

It's a fantastic parody of mainstream media's attitude towards user-generated content. Almost as good as Jeremy Paxman's outburst at the end of Newsnight:

The worst social media of 2007?

Niall Cook — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:57:34 GMT

At South by Southwest Interactive (SXSWi), a panel of judges has just chosen the winners (or should that be losers?) of The Suxorz - "the Worst of the Worst in Social Media Marketing for 2007".

As some of the companies nominated are clients and I do not know whether we were involved in any of the campaigns (I know we weren't in the UK), I'll point you to Scott Monty's round up of the contenders.

I find a few things interesting about this.

Judging Criteria

This included:

Advertisers acting like asses
Out and out lying to customers
Corrupting authentic voices

The Conclusion

Steve Hall (adrants.com): "It's not hard to tell the truth; if you don't, it's just a matter of time before the public finds out."

Carrot or Stick

I'm still on the fence over whether it's better to applaud good behaviour or berate bad. In my experience, the latter is far easier to do (and indeed is what some of the panel have built their own reputations on). My concern is that it stops brands who want to do the right thing from even trying, just in case someone decides to turn on them. It serves to reinforce the corporate perception that I encounter all the time; that social media is just one big lynch mob.

Pot calls kettle black

Niall Cook — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:13:00 GMT

UPDATE: Rainier PR's Stephen Waddington chips in with 'Flat Earth debate disappoints' (Great first comment too)
UPDATE 2: Press Gazette has now published their write-up (no doubt they were checking their facts and quotes, unlike us bloggers) and Guy has posted his thoughts.

I spent yesterday evening at the London College of Communication for the Flat Earth News debate organised by Press Gazette.

On the panel were Dominic Ponsford (Press Gazette), Francis Ingham (PRCA), Malcolm Starbrook (East London Advertiser), Sally Costerton (Hill & Knowlton), Paul Charman (chair), Nick Davies (author of Flat Earth News), Peter Preston (ex-Guardian), Andrew Gilligan (Evening Standard) and Michelle Stainstreet (NUJ).

Below follow my hastily typed notes from the main panel discussion. I've tried to tidy them up without losing their spontaneity. There was some Q&A afterwards, but this unfortunately descended into less questioning of the panel and more assertion from the floor.

Nick Davies opened proceedings by saying that the negative response against his book is not representative of overall feedback he has received. The core argument he presented was that ownership of the media has changed, and the resulting commercialism has undermined the media. The time taken away from journalists because of this is making them vulnerable to manipulation from companies and public relations. He appeared to be blaming PR for the fact that journalists don't check facts. They miss stories because they rely on PR and newswires. He wants to stop PR people making judgements about what stories and angles get carried.

I was quite surprised to hear from a journalist that PR is quite so powerful. I wonder if someone could tell our clients...

In response Peter Preston urged a sense of reality. Newspapers are commercial. Its not all awful, but there are things we need to do. He had his day in the Q&A session later.

Michelle Stainstreet took the somewhat predictable 'told you so' stance. It's all down to job cuts, long hours, poor pay deals, etc. Journalists are tied to their desks, churning out stories. It's not the journalists fault, she suggested, it's the owners in pursuit of profit. Of course, she finished, they should all join the NUJ.

Sally Costerton disagreed with Nick's point that readers and viewers are being misled. She argued that PR people are enablers who need to understand journalists' agendas. Nick represents PR on a polarised level in his book - all lobbying and stunts. But the vast majority of what PR does is not that. Transparency is key - staff at Hill & Knowlton for example are bound by numerous codes of conduct. She also raised the issue of the explosion of channels - in particular, the spiralling of content on the internet which is not going to go away. Journalists are also bloggers - wearing two hats. This is new territory, how do PRs and journalists engage together? At the end of the day both parties want to stand up for the truth.

Malcolm Starbrook took issue with Nick's interpretation of figures. Fewer journalists and less time doesn't mean worse journalism. The world is just moving faster. In addition, access to sources has been restricted that means that some of the old 'bread and butter' journalism simply isn't possible today (e.g. defendants/witnesses can have journalists removed from court). Also, churnalism is not the same as sloppy journalism. It's just the result of bad editors.

Francis Ingham was probably the boldest critic on the panel. He said that the picture painted about PR in the book is "partial, unfair and misleading." In possible the best quote of the night he said, "PR isn't that powerful, journalists are not that lazy, and the public are not that stupid." Argued that PR companies live or die on the strength of their reputations. Once their credibility is gone, its gone forever. A few gasps from the audience when he summed the book up as good entertainment: "Like a Jeffrey Archer novel. Good fun to read, but not to be taken too seriously."

By this time, things needed cooling down (including the lecture theatre which appeared to have no air conditioning). Dominic Ponsford pointed out that in his opinion the standard of journalism in regional press is generally excellent. But there is no doubt that PR material is a handy form of copy.

Andrew Gilligan - who arrived fashionably late, first in his cycling gear (some of the audience later said they thought he was the pizza delivery boy) - said that he was a nuanced supporter of the book, given his own experiences of being both story-writer and the story itself. Focused on the web: "The web has transformed my productivity as a journalist." Also argued that the web is the ultimate definition of churnalism. "All journalism is judgement." You have to include which facts to leave in and which to leave out. The two things journalists want are stories and follow-up.

In all, an interesting evening. Not much of a debate, to be honest, and not really sure whether the overall motion was passed or defeated.