Tweet, Blog, Riot!


You may have noticed over the past week a certain tension in the air. Also, a lot of smoke. The Feral Youth™ of Broken Britain© that Daily Mail columnists are always going on about took to the streets and wreaked havoc in their hoodies, you may have noticed. If not, you’re following the wrong people on Twitter. Also, it was Twitter’s fault…or BlackBerry’s fault…or Facebook’s fault. Probably not LinkedIn’s fault though. Also, it was rap music’s fault. Anyway, it was SOMEONE’s fault! After all, how else can we explain complex socio-economic factors? We can’t. It’s the computers fault.

Whichever scapegoat the media and politicians finally land on, one thing is for sure; the riots will have some interesting consequences for the relationship between the law and social media.

Social Media-led Arrests

For one thing, arrests have already been made for using Facebook and Twitter to incite the riots. Three people have been arrested in Southampton. In Scotland, three teenagers have been arrested for attempting to incite riots in Dundee city centre on Facebook. A spokesman from the Tayside Police stated that:

“The posting of such comments, whether or not the intention is to encourage disturbances, can cause alarm and distress to the communities in which we live and encourage others to behave in a violent or disorderly manner.”

That may sound familiar to you; we’ve basically resurrected the Twitter Joke Trial. The widely mocked and decried precedent set there was that a threatening message in a public forum, such as Twitter, is indeed a serious matter.

Here We Go Again

Earlier today The Prime Minister, David Cameron, came out with this gem in an address to parliament:

“Mr Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

He’s notably lacking in the details but if this particular decree is in any way similar to the Digital Economy Act of 2010 it will probably run straight into difficulties, both on human rights grounds and logistical ones.

Let’s talk about the practicality of banning people from using social media. A recent poll conducted by Opinium Research found that 38% of people support shutting down social media channels during civil unrest. The poll did not reveal what percentage of that 38% actually considered the logistics of doing such a thing. One, not very good, solution would be to enact a temporary blocking of social media domains, somewhat like the proxy that the Internet Watch Foundation already holds over the UK to reduce file-sharing of illicit material. Proxies can be breached pretty easily, as we saw in Egypt earlier this year. Maybe block those people who do incite unrest on social media from the internet? Tried that sort of thing already with the Digital Economy Act and that’s now stuck in what is sure to be a long judicial review. It wouldn’t work anyway, there are far too many ways to get around an individual ban. For instance, Starbucks. Another would be to shut off the Internet completely. And that wouldn’t go down very well at all, even with the 38% of people who wouldn’t mind losing Facebook for an evening.

Even if details of the rioters were supplied to social media site owners to be blacklisted, they could find new Wi-Fi connections and make up new details. Twitter, especially is extremely easy to falsify details on – you don’t even need to verify the email you use! BlackBerry Messenger? They’re called Pay as You Go phones. Even if you crack all of these problems, other forums and social media services you’ve never even considered will surely pop up. In some quarters these accounts and devices are called ‘throwaways,’ and social media profiles can quite easily become disposable and interchangeable; just look at the recent LulzSec and Anonymous sagas.

So… how exactly are you to ban people from social media, Mr Prime Minister?

by David Shawcross


David Shawcross, Social Media Comment, Social Media News


Social Media News 18/07/11 – 24/07/11


Each day, @smlupdates tweets top social media and digital marketing news, tips, discussions and comment. Here are our five most popular articles from last week:

Why Spelling and Grammar Matter in Marketing - Who knew people were so passionate about spelling and grammar!? When it comes to your marketing, it seems that it pays to get it right…

Forrester report: how companies listen and engage with social media - Knowing how other businesses use social media is crucial to your own social media policy. Here’s Forrester’s report on how 200 US marketers are using the technology…

Rebekah Brooks “Friday” (Rebecca Black Parody) - Combining the year’s biggest news story with the year’s biggest viral video was always going to be something of a winner (although maybe not for the ears)…

Google+ and the friends v acquaintances debate - Google+ asks you to divvy up the people you know into different groups. Here, the BBC tackle the inevitably awkward social situation this leads to…

5 and a half ways to ensure you never run out of content - The more content platforms there are, the more we need to keep producing content. Smartblogs give tips on how to keep up…

by Paul Barnett


Paul Barnett, Social Media News: Weekly Round-up


Google+ Goes Head To Head With Facebook


As Google launches its Google+ social network, we ask what chance it has of success against the all-encompassing Facebook?

Something’s gone a bit squiffy in social media; Google has been crowned a success. Also, Facebook is dead in the water. We don’t do over-hyping on the SML Blog, so here are five totally-not-over-hyped-at-all thoughts and considerations about Google+, and what it means for social media.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. It validates Zuckerberg.

Facebook has steadily moved away from the numbers game we expect of a pure social network; users of a site implies a temporary position – users of MySpace moved to Facebook after all. Rather than chasing figures, Facebook has been chasing omnipresence – they want their social graph to be the background of the web.

G+ has taken a similar approach right out of the gate – rather than simply trying to build a social network ala Orkut, Google is looking to integrate their entire social suite (Blogger, Picasa) into a more centralised network. Google is in a unique position in this regard – Facebook is unlikely to buy up both WordPress and Flickr, though both do have FB connect features – but the real battle will be fought over third-party integration, where Facebook has a massive headstart.

2. Can G+ gain traction?

Aside from the issue of web integration, G+ has the issue of attracting a substantial userbase to rival Facebook’s and for this reason it’s unlikely to topple the house that Mark built. Similar things were said when the upstart Facebook took on MySpace, but today it’s different – Facebook has become so tightly ingrained into people’s Internet usage that droves of people switching over wholesale is unlikely at best. That leaves the idea of co-existence. The problem with that is that G+ is so fundamentally based on Facebook that many will see little point in switching. The fact may be that Facebook is too big to fail.

3. Features, features, featu-YOINK!

Google+ has put forward two ‘unique’ selling points – Circles and Hangouts. The problem is that Facebook can copy these with ease, unleashing them on their entire userbase before G+ even opens their doors to everyone.

The concept of ‘Circles’ is one of Google+’s greatest selling points to the common man – split up your friends and decide who to share to; control your content! The problem is, Facebook already has this feature; it’s called groups and it’s poised for a renovation.

‘Hangout’ is a group video chat baked right into Google+. When it was announced, Facebook had no counter-point. But now, they do, as they’ve just integrated the daddy of all video chat clients – Skype. Right now it allows only one-to-one chats, but expansion is possible.

Facebook has shown they’re no strangers to borrowing ideas – Facebook Places took on the likes of Foursquare, and Facebook Q&A took on the upstarts of Quora – Circles could easily be fitted into Facebook. The innovative features of Google + may very well just become a tech demo for future improvements of Facebook.

4. The impact on blogger outreach.

As we’ve already covered, G+ is looking to centralise Google’s social properties, including Blogger. The sheer size of Blogger’s userbase means this will add massive value to marketers – at the moment Blogger doesn’t mandate that it be visibly linked with a Google profile, but soon all this extra information about bloggers should be easily available.

This means that some aspects of the research behind blogger outreach could become that much more refined – we’ll have access not just to the blogger, but tangible stats about their connected audience all through the connections made with their G+ profile.

It’s worth remembering, though, that this will only apply to bloggers using the soon-to-be-renamed Google Blogs. WordPress users will remain as aloof as they desire and Tumblr bloggers will be free to continue their merry dance of anonymity.

5. The power of mobile

G+ has been extremely well received to this point, and its upcoming integration into everything Google is highly anticipated.

Unfortunately this integration may also be it’s Achilles heel, as the social media zeitgeist moves away from centralised social networking to one of several social graphs spread across several distinct (often mobile) services.

The ace in Google’s hand here is their mobile OS, Android. It remains to be seen how G+ will be integrated into future updates of Android, but it’s expected to be extremely tightly integrated in the same vein of the recently unveiled Twitter integration into iOS. G+ has its (extremely likely) mobile integration, Twitter has its mobile integration, Facebook has… apps, and a nifty little mobile interface. It’s hard not to give the points to G+ in this round.

by David Shawcross


David Shawcross, Social Media Comment, Social Media News


Social Media In The Pink: How One Charity Changed The Mind Of A Supermarket Giant.


 

For charities and non-profit organisations, social media plays an invaluable tool in promoting their causes. For Pink Stinks, an organisation consisting of three volunteers and zero funding, the use of Facebook meant that their campaign reached global media and achieved its aim of changing the practices of one of Britain’s supermarket giants.

Pink Stinks

Pink Stinks

The organisation aims to empower girls by changing society’s gender messages. They believe that society bombards us with images of what girls and boys are, which ultimately pigeonholes genders, thereby limiting them. By altering these perceived notions, Pink Stinks believe that they can improve opportunities open to girls by raising their confidence, showing them that they can succeed in the same way as boys and not be bogged down by traditional role of beauty over brains.

Their latest campaign focussed on Sainsbury’s labelling of children’s clothes – nurse and princess outfits were labelled as ‘Girl’s’, soldier, pilot and doctor outfits were labelled ‘Boy’s’. Initially their calls for change were ignored by the supermarket. Persistence, and the clout of an 11,000-strong Facebook group, prevailed in the end though and the chain agreed stating that “new labels, which will be non-gender-specific, will go on the next allocation of clothing from July”.

A spokeswoman for Pinkstinks said: “A lot of people underestimate the power of social media but it has proved an invaluable tool for us. So much of our support has come though such sites and through them our supporters can spread our messages and our successes across the world.

“A lot of bigger organisations are scared of what opening themselves up to live comment might do, but for us, with our non-existent budget it was the only way to spread our message. It also provides a platform for debate which gives a sense of inclusion for every single supporter.”

With their campaign aim achieved, it sends out a strong message that social media can help grease the wheels for change, whatever your budget.

About the Author

Paul Barnett

Paul Barnett

Paul Barnett is a Social Media Analyst for Social Media Library, responsible for developing the content within Social Media Library. Paul lives in a world of blogs, blogs and more blogs, scouring the web and plucking out the juiciest information he finds. Previous to this, he worked as a Music Press Officer. He is also a freelance writer and blogs about stuff that he does here.


Paul Barnett, Social Media Case Study


Nestle Facebook Response Leaves Sour Taste


Nestlé are no strangers to falling foul of the ethical lobby – the globally widespread boycott of Nestlé products over their aggressive marketing of baby milk formula started as far back as 1977, and rumbles on to this day. But their handling of the latest crisis, at least within the social media sphere, appears to be disastrous.

A campaign spearheaded by Greenpeace targets Nestlé’s use of palm oil in their products, which the environmental organisation claims is a major factor in destroying the rainforests which orang-utans rely on for their livelihood. The campaign was helped by a Panorama special recently which highlighted the company’s practices. Perhaps inevitably, the campaign’s latest movement is into the social media sphere, with the corporate Facebook page being invaded by protestors, many of whom have changed their profiles pictures to baby orangutans and a cleverly altered “Killer” KitKat logo. Corporate bashing isn’t new and Nestlé’s reaction deep in the boardroom may be a familiar sigh rather than panic. But as with so many companies, and as Paperchase found out to their cost recently, Nestlé ’s response to the crisis has not been to limit or mitigate the damage, but possibly to make things worse.

Killer Kit Kat

Killer Kit Kat

Dozens of Facebook users have posted their intentions to boycott Nestlé products, and other similar sentiments, on the official Nestlé fanpage, which to date has 90,000 followers. Nestlé have clearly heeded the mantra about an effective social media strategy equalling engagement. Unfortunately, this engagement has included sarcastic, irritable and downright rude responses to some of the messages from an employee who has clearly cracked under pressure. Our entire office guffawed at the response to one user “commending” the company for destroying the rainforest: “Unfortunately we have no house rules about sarcasm, so we’ll leave this post” (why not?) but their own sarcastic response to another user’s message “to the director of Nestlé” does not put the company in a good light: “Get it off your chest – we’ll pass it on.” And getting embroiled in unwinnable arguments breaches virtually every rule of PR.

Breaking Every PR Rule

Breaking Every PR Rule

Even some well wishers kindly point out the folly of their approach – one linking to this excellent piece.  Even so, at time of writing, the feisty responses remain on the page. Perhaps there is little point in engaging with the mob who have the bit between their teeth, one thing is clear – borderline abuse of people who may have been erstwhile customers is catastrophic. I would put it down to the social media engagement being put in the hands of a junior marketing person who is, frankly, clueless when it comes to social media best practices. The blame shouldn’t even be on that individual; it should be on senior management who have clearly deemed social media as an essential part of the marketing machine, yet not worthy of being handled by senior people or adequately checked and signed off. Doubtless Vodafone would agree with me.  In the meantime, however, they may be horrified by the needled reaction to a Helen Constable suggesting the obvious – that an ill-informed junior has been ill-advisedly put in charge of the Facebook account, with another sarcastic reply.

More Sarcasm

More Sarcasm

Like Vodafone, today’s events might encourage Nestlé to rethink their social media strategy – but for a company whose handling of negative PR has been enriched by years of experience, it is slightly surprising to see that they didn’t see this coming.

But what else could they have done? Extreme options could be to close the page altogether, or delete all negative posts. Both would be unwise. Digging in to the bunker with a good supply of choccy bars and waiting for the storm to blow over would probably be the best idea. The benefits of the Facebook page probably outweigh the drawbacks, however it’s worth pointing out that only those existing “fans” who actually visit the page will see all the negative messages as only Nestlé-written posts will appear in news feeds (admittedly with subsequent comments).

As the Evening Standard’s Paul Waugh pointed out at the Lewis PR Social Media Summit last week, social media has the effect of making stories flare up quickly, but also peter out more quickly than they would in traditional media. It remains to be seen how long this particular story will rumble on for – the campaign is backed by environmental heavyweights and is not restricted to social media. Yet again, however, there are basic lessons to be learned.

An Orangutan Speaks

An Orangutan Speaks

Are you in charge of Nestlé’s social media strategy? Want help digging yourselves out of a hole? Give Louise at The Social Media Academy a call on 020 7390 8525 and find out how we could help.


Eoghan O'Neill, Social Media Case Study, Social Media Comment


Older Posts »