“It is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer, full stop, end of story. I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims and the havoc he wreaked in that community. There should be no sympathy for him.”

More interestingly, the British government also subsequently contacted Facebook and asked for the content to be removed. Facebook has declined to remove the comments. That’s right. A Prime Minister isn’t a community manager. Here’s why:

- A community manager doesn’t enforce a view. Disagreement is allowed in every online forum. Actually, it’s encouraged. More than that, dissent and plurality is the point. All comers are welcome. A community manager should encourage diverse views, not damn them. Unsavoury opinions are cool. There's something wrong when a community manager censors an opinion simply because he or she disagrees.

- A community manager doesn’t silence conversations. We marshal them. We sometimes moderate them but we always enable debate. But it’s usually the style and the words that we deal with, rather than the content. Threats of violence are right out. Swear words, in most communities, aren’t permissible. Freedom of speech is, generally, golden. Silence isn’t.

- A community manager isn’t a CEO. A Prime Minister is. He or she has more important things to do than meddle with the online discussions. A CEO should leave the moderation of an online community to people who are experienced. It’s hard for a CEO to see that sometimes, but they do need to learn.

- A community manager is accountable but not elected. They should seek approval by being good at what they do and not for currying favour by what they say.

Tom Watson fighting the good fight.

It’s tempting to concentrate on the process of legislation and note that no law should be passed as quickly and without proper scrutiny as the #DEBill was. But despite that venial sin, it’s the content of the bill that’s cardinal. Again: it was a bad bill. Section 11 to 18 in particular.

I do want to make three observations:

Our lawmakers don’t understand the web: I’m not defending anyone here but it is worth noting that many of our representatives have little experience or knowledge of (even concern for) the web. The bill was announced last autumn but it seems like much of our opposition didn’t emerge until the past few weeks. Big business and interest groups got in there first. I think that we geeks (techies, netizens, ) should have organised sooner. Part of winning the argument was about educating the legislators. Hard work? Yes. Should we have to? No. My experience with the majority of MPs I have met is that education about the internet is sorely needed. Regrettably we don’t have a Commons filled with people like Tom Watson.

We need a movement: There is no reason why a varied and huge group such as “concerned webby types” should have an organisation to express a collective voice. But we did need it. Even the Open Rights Group, to name one organisation that did good work, isn’t influential enough, even with best efforts, to make the noise we needed. I’ve seen the sort of campaigns that are conducted to persuade and inform MPs. Organisations protecting water voles have managed more coherent and influential lobbying campaigns than we managed opposing the #DEBill. Whether we like it or not, proper lobbying is influential. Some demos, unfocussed letter-writing and emails and Twitter outrage isn’t lobbying enough. (Especially when your MP probably doesn’t get the web. See point above.)

Slacktivism is just that: Twittering about how you oppose a bill doesn’t necessarily reach the people it should. Affirming on Twitter how you won’t abide by a law isn’t enough either. We need to be better campaigners and sometimes that means we need to be proficient lobbyists via traditional analogue means. I wonder if we managed as many emails and letters to MPs as we managed complaints to the PPC re Jan Moir?

The bogeyman on this occasion was, without doubt, a Labour government forcing through a bad bill on a three line whip. We let one through this time. But let’s get ready for the next one that will inevitably follow.

Past
It’s wrong to characterise what’s commonly called ‘social media’ as something which has emerged in the past 5 years or so and it’s worth remembering that many of the characteristics of social media have been prevalent online almost since inception: forums, chatrooms and newsgroups have a long heritage, the first wiki was born in 1995, the Cluetrain Manifesto and Friends Reunited (the first online social network to find a mass Market in the UK) launched in 1999 and blogging in a recognisable form has existed since the mid-90s. In many ways, the social media values of transparency, conversation and user value are the values of the World Wide Web itself.

Present
So, it’s not really new. Two developments have brought social media to the fore more recently. Firstly, the mass use of sites such as Facebook, Bebo, Myspace and Youtube (to name but a few) represents ‘normalisation’ so using social media tools is no longer niche (that said there is still a great divide between the use of ‘normal’ social media and more advanced services). Secondly, business is definitely taking notice and knows that there’s an opportunity to be grasped and exploited, even if there is some confusion about what that opportunity actually is.

And yet, according to HitWise only 10% of UK traffic is going to social media. Twitter, despite the hype, and massive growth in recent months only takes about 0.67% of the total. Facebook only recently overtook eBay in terms of visitors. Often ignored in the space are the large media organisations, notably the Guardian and the Telegraph. The BBC, in particular, must be the most influential (if not innovative) player with widespread use of blogs, forums, podcasts and UGC. Moreover, through the promotion of these features on air, the Beeb has been a vital educator, introducing millions to social media.

It is tempting to overstate the importance, influence, and revolutionary nature of social media. I believe that social media can be transformational to individuals and organisations and has the power to enhance business, politics and society. However, its influence is less in the technology itself but rather in the ‘mindset shift’ it can enable. Using Facebook or Twitter in itself isn’t enough. The benefits come from embracing the social media values of conversation, transparency, collaboration and providing greater value to users/customers.

The Curse of ‘Cool’
The net industry, pundits and tech journalists are prone to be inward-looking and blinkered, concentrating on niche products, cool and new technology whilst sneering at the commercial success and popularity of other sites. It’s notable that Martin Lewis with his MoneySavingExpert.com community (which has active forums and relies on UGC) is enjoying phenomenal success and yet is virtually ignored by the netocracy despite representing ‘best practice’. Darling of Web 2.0 circuit Dopplr is a miniscule service for frequent business travellers, and whilst beautifully engineered and delightfully designed, it shouldn’t be held in higher esteem than profitable, less cool brands.

Equally, the media and industry are prone to consider social media a vital link to younger audiences when the figures suggest otherwise. Contrary to received wisdom, more than half of the MySpace and Facebook audiences are over 35, and both have more female users than male. There is also a risk of transposing UK/Western trends on the rest of the world. Social media usage in Asia and South America (to name two massive and growing audiences) is completely different to that in Britain or USA.

One of the biggest risks of using social media, specifically as a marketing and communications channel, is the the reason then failure seems motivation. If ‘being cool’ or doing it ‘because we must’ is likely.

Future Growth
Obviously, the social media audience is going to grow in the next few years and the sophistication of the audience is going to increase too (some say that ‘digital natives’ are so savvy that they blank out commercial messages altogether.) The recession will probably see people using the net more as they go out less or try and save money online. However, as many social networks struggle to monetise, it seems likely that businesses promoting themselves online will be squeezed to cough up more. This will mean that honest, inventive marketing will be required if social media is to be a transformational channel.

Social Media and Media Agencies
Any organisation working on marketing or branding needs to have an eye on social media. It cannot be ignored but neither should it be hyped or peddled as a panacea. It’s interesting to note that many businesses making successful strides are SMEs or individuals. Stephen Fry is a good example of someone who successfully enhances his personal brand online using not just Twitter but blogging and podcasts. Moo.com and 37 signals use a rack of options to communicate with their very loyal userbases. This is surely because smaller organisations have an authentic and compelling voice.

Some bigger brands have been successful too: Dell provides discounts to Twitter followers. Walkers ‘Do us a flavour’ campaign has successfully integrated social media with traditional offline marketing and a great concept. Innocent Smoothies practice ‘radical’ transparency and amplify their trustworthy, chatty brand online with their blog and Twitter feed. BT communicate directluy with customers via @btcare on Twitter.

There is great value in reaching out to smaller communities where opinion formers and early adopters are found. Equally bigger, focussed communities (MoneySavingExpert springs to mind again) offer a valuable audience. But the tendency is to ‘broadcast’. Work I have done with PR people is instructive. PRs like control, and, even the most decent, have key messages and a script they don’t want people to stray from. Bloggers, for instance, are often perceived as dangerous, unprofessional and untrained: read as ‘harder to control and influence than press journalists’.

The Client Challenge
From work I’ve done with bigger brands, I’d say that there’s lots of keen, but not enough willing. To make social media marketing work, it’s necessary to give up some control and allow people a voice. There is concern about criticism. Bigger organisations are also not built to take part in a conversation. Legal approval, a nod from the Head of Marketing and screening by investor relations does not make it easy to respond. Brands and organisations have to flex a little to make social media forays successful. Part of a media agency’s skillset needs to be persuading and coaxing that change out of clients.

Social Media isn’t a ‘Dark Art’
Within a media agency, the social media offer opportunities that can and should be integrated in campaigns and projects. Indeed, sometimes social media can be the lead channel but treating it with too much reverence, mystery or magic is to overstate its possible impact.

To integrate social media effectively the people within an agency, at all levels, need to be conversant and confident users. It should be normal and every day. Social media should be on the minds of everyone during all stages of the creative process. It shouldn’t be a ‘plug-in’ or a specialism limited to a few individuals. When an agency and its people are successfully consuming and conversing using social media with the same ease as TV, radio and newspapers it can effectively sell the benefits to clients.

Links:
http://weblogs.hitwise.com/robin-goad/2009/02/twitter_enters_top_100_websites.html
http://weblogs.hitwise.com/robin-goad/2008/12/facebook_youtube_christmas_social_networking.html

But after a long time, I’m on the verge of changing my mind and going Mac. But not quite. Not quite.

Key to my loyalty has been a very effective Dell laptop that has never let me down. Never let me down. (Ok. Once. Service Pack 3. Lesson learnt.) Ever since I bought it in January 2006 it has been a reliable, lightweight, versatile and frankly indestructible machine. It’s been punished. Travelled everywhere I’ve been. It does what I want it to do admirably (which is predominantly writing and net use although increasingly I’m meddling with photos, videos and sound files) and it has so far proved to be unbelievable value. It’s the third or fourth (via a few work PCs) in a succession of very reliable machines from Dell that takes me back to 1997 when I first took a laptop for University.

I bought my latest machine in April this year and in terms of sturdiness the new Dell machine isn’t as good. Vista has also been an absolute disaster. I’ve actually gone back to using the immortal XP machine. God I love her.

In the past months, confronted with Vista and the new machine, I’ve thought about making the switch to a Mac. You know me. I do my research. My major concerns relate to the fact that I deal professionally with organisations who uses old Windows machines and I need Word and PowerPoint docs etc to reach people with formatting intact.

I’ve asked Mac users: trust me, I know plenty. Many of whom who have been useful but many have not. I have an iPod. I understand that Apple make beautiful things. But it’s astonishing that so many Macists rely on evangelical statements that even your average fundamentalist Christian would shy away from because they’re so unsubstantial. When I ask why I should swap to a Mac, and whether this or that will work and whether wotsit and the other can be done, I’m not interested in answers that start with: “As Steve Jobs said…” I am as uninterested in the Book of Jobs as I am with the Bill is Right brigade.

The thing is, remember, my PCs have served me well. They’re not the crap ‘Mac Wankers’ keep telling me they are. Of course, I don’t code, or graphic design or game on any serious level. This two or one click mouse thing bothers me not. Taskbars and brushed stainless steel. Meh. Snow Leopard? I have no tangible idea what that practically means. But Macists tell me “it’s amazing”. I kind of accept that Macs are indeed better. But is one Mac, in particular, going to be better for me? That’s the answer I want. It’s certainly not going to be cheaper, after all.

I must have been into Apple Stores a dozen times in London and Brighton looking for the answers I need. On one occasion I wandered in, started meddling with a Macbook and got asked to move along because other people wanted to “experience” it. I’d been there about two minutes.

Apple Stores represent an unusually pointless experience for the uninitiated. I visit them like I visit Churches. I just look at things and admire them and watch people who know what they’re doing, doing what they want to do. As a non-believer, I just amble around respectfully, appreciate, nod, show respect and leave. It’s a pleasing pastime but not necessarily very illuminating. I’ve visited hundreds of Churches and never found faith. It’s rather the same with Apple Stores.

On my two appointments at the genius bar to get the skinny, one was excellent and most informative (and 90% got me there). The other was nonsense and, to continue my Church simile, was like taking confession whilst the priest tried to find the “Fuck Off” App on his iPhone. To the smiley unlistening, uber-euro, seemingly non-gender specific Appleton with trendy specs, an asymmetric, pedantically scruffy fringe and a faraway look suggesting a night before enhanced by hallucinogenic drugs: there’s no such Windows program as Metebelis 3. I made it up (or rather stole the name of a planet in Doctor Who). That’s why I scoffed at your claim that not only will Metebelis 3 work on a Mac, but it will work even better.

My current inclination, mostly because having bought one computer in the past 6 months I’m not inclined towards the expense of buying another, is to get Vista off my new PC and live with it for a few months and spend a bit more time learning about Macs. A few snatched minutes in Apple Store hasn’t been enough for me but now I’m back at Uni, it’s good to note they have Macs for use there. Maybe experience will tip the balance. But as I look at the latest raft of Mac and Windows ads slagging each other, I’ve got to say: if those guys could focus on details and facts, I’d find that a great deal more useful.

I was present at the birth, after all, and enough of a media tart to hope I have something quotable to say. As ever, the material provided was much greater than material used and, you lucky people, here’s the full transcript of my jabbering in the hope that it is of interest to someone out there. It’s doing no good in my inbox, after all. A scan of the published article lives here.

The brief: Essentially I was wondering if you could tell me what, in your opinion, has made eBay stand out from the pack, how it has survived for 10 years and avoid the failure of so many dotcom start-ups around the turn of the millennium, and what you might imagine will happen in the future. You were there on day one: include a bit of info about what that first day and the build-up to it was like. Don't suppose you remember what the first item sold was?

Dan Wilson said: eBay's strength has always been the amazing, crazy, weird and wonderful things for sale: everything, literally everything you can imagine is up for sale on eBay. eBay is addictive and people pore over the site for hours and hours pursuing their passion or seeking out a bargain.

eBay transformed collecting. Before, it was car boot sales and collectors' fairs possibly spending years looking for that elusive item. All of a sudden, you could buy from fellow collectors all over the world. It was revolutionary.

eBay diversified very successfully. Starting off as a second hand auction marketplace and becoming a place for everyday and mundane things: hoovers, saucepans, cushions. Buy it Now is the favourite way of buying on eBay now. Hundreds of thousands of business operate through the site, selling billions of pounds worth of goods every year.

eBay side-stepped the dotcom bubble bursting because it was light years ahead of the pack in terms of philosophy. eBay was the first Web 2.0 company, relying on buyers and sellers to lead the way with feedback and people power. eBay realised before Wikipedia or Youtube that the users are in charge and they chart the course of the business. Giving up control is vital on the internet.

It is also such a staggeringly simple idea: people trading with other people online. Lots of the companies that toppled when the bubble burst were absurd, niche or just damned crazy. eBay was always a cracking concept: a real 'why didn't I think of that?' idea. eBay is also a remarkable business in that it has always generated profits since day one. Lots of businesses that went bust had never made a penny.

eBay's having a tough time right now and facing increased competition from Amazon. Profits are down and there are lots of angry sellers. But eBay is a clever, dynamic company with a loyal community: there will always be an eBay.

eBay was already very successful stateside when it came to the UK in 1999. When we launched in the UK, we were working in a shabby, rented office like any typical start up. It was total chaos and we had no idea that what seemed like a very American concept would work over here. Lots of antique sellers and collectable traders were very sceptical about the internet and worried that it would do them out of business. The internet was risky and scary in 1999 to people who didn’t know it well.

As it is, of course, eBay has been a godsend to many businesses. Most selling in 1999 was to buyers overseas. Lots of buyers in America and Australia wanted to get their hands on a British collectables and that was the source of amazing early growth. Before PayPal, lots of international trading was done in cash. I sold stacks of Doctor Who memorabilia back then and I was always going to get dollars changed at the bank.

I think the first item sold was a CD by the Scorpions... but my memory is hazy. It was ten years ago...

How 31 Year Olds Consume Media
By Dan Wilson (31 years and 8 months)

Radio
We listen to the radio a lot and increasingly we’ve started enjoying Wake up to Wogan. Terry’s dry wit is a great start to the day. Moving Jo Whiley to the weekends seems like a shame. Singles we bought in our teens are increasingly being billed as oldies. We miss John Peel.

Television
We watch much more television than we confess to and constantly complain that TV isn’t as good as it used to be. Nowadays it’s all cooking, antiques and property shows. Programmes about making money from buying and selling houses have become less satisfactory since we fell into negative equity. iPlayer means we can catch up with Celebrity Masterchef at our convenience. Interactive TV means things like calling Noel Edmonds on Swapshop, writing to Jim’ll Fix it and shouting at the panel on Question Time.

Newspapers
You can’t beat a sunday morning with a coffee and the quality papers. You can’t do that on a Nintendo! Otherwise, Metro or other freesheets that you pick up on the way to work.

Music
We’re angry about music because the industry has fleeced us time and time again. We’ve bought music on vinyl, tape, CD and downloaded it too. And yet Paul Mcartney still hasn’t stopped complaining about how we’re ripping him off. We have no idea what DRM is but we suspect it’s a pretty good university second only to Oxford and Cambridge.

Devices
We remember when having a telephone meant that mum used her special phone voice and said our own telephone number when she picked up the receiver. Calling after 6pm was cheaper and calling abroad was prohibitively expensive. We used to phone up other people’s houses and just hope they were in. Yes, really.

We’ve had decent mobiles for a decade and more. Our first fone was seriously cool and seriously expensive. Every handset since has been smaller, cheaper and more reliable. This has taught us a lot about life. We’re still teaching our parents how to text. Blackberrys are great because you can check your work email on the way home. Apple iPhones are great because you can check your work email on the way home and feel superior to someone who’s still using a Blackberry.

Internet
31 years olds are adept at using the internet. Many people look at pornography.

Friends Reunited introduced us to social media and reconnected us with everyone we ever lost touch with from school. We spent a decade regretting our early enthusiasm but remain satisfied with the knowledge that the school cool kid who once taunted us now works in Tescos and has three kids by three different partners (the oldest child is 12!). We deserted Friends Reunited when our mum and teachers joined but there’s still someone we had a crush on in year 9 (just after it stopped being the fifth form) that we keep an eye out for. Just in case.

MySpace is a mystery. It looks like a teenage bedroom wall covered in posters and magazine cuttings. We hate it because the Guardian says it’s owned by Rupert Murdoch. We know it’s very important for new bands (such as The Arctic Monkeys) hoping to make the charts but since they cancelled Top of the Pops we don’t see much point in the charts. We understand that MySpace is all to do with downloads. Downloads are just like singles. But free. Downloads killed Woolworths. Pick and Mix was better than MySpace.

Facebook is for baby photos, wedding photos and party photos. People who put up baby photos get most of their adult interaction via Facebook. Women who put up wedding photos look forward to the day when they can put up baby photos of their own. Married men are jealous of their single mates going to the pub a great deal more than they do. People who post party photos keep a close eye on the relationship status and are keenly aware that their profile picture makes them look better than in real life. Everyone plays a lot of Scrabble.

Twitter is great. It takes us moments to lie about what we’ve been doing. We seem more interesting, erudite and connected on Twitter than we really are in real life. A train delay is a great tweet and everyone wants to know about a trip to a farmers’ market. Here’s hoping no one asks us out for a mountain bike ride after last weekend’s tweets. We made it up.

Gaming
Monopoly, Cluedo and Scrabble at Christmas. Will consider getting a Wii when Chucky Egg and Pong are available.

Mathew Robson
We have no idea why a lad who should be wanking, drinking Merrydown cider in a graveyard and listening to Radiohead is writing plausible memos for an evil merchant bank. At his age we hated Thatcher and thought that a Labour government would make everything better. We did our work experience at the local B&Q. We still listen to the Levellers when we’ve drunk too much carbon-neutral wine from artisan vineyards in Dorset.

Imagine this: people make social judgements about the emails they receive. It's an obvious observation with real importance for marketers and worth reading.

This article examines the mistakes that many business owners make when they embark on building a new website. It's good food for thought.

I found this Mashable article about whether your company should have a social media strategy absorbing.

This Next Web article makes sensible points about choosing a good domain name.

According to Hitwise, online retailers are getting more traffic from social networks than paid search. Useful reading but I'm unsure whether the numbers are simply just good PR rather than usual business advice.

An old favourite. Do you remember what your and other websites looked like way back when? See how far you've come. I adore the Wayback Machine.

Surely, in the face of 'Google' Trimble's Corpus Christi scratch being disqualified for fielding an ineligible player, what we need is a rematch? The publicity last week's final received shows that the media and the people have a thirst for University Challenge*. I humbly suggest (pending the BBC, Granada and both teams being in agreement) that Manchester take a full team and Corpus Christi take their three eligible players to the crease for a stonking rematch.

Jeremy Paxman's opening chastisement and a full rack of challenging trivia would surely be 'event telly', great for viewing figures and the only honourable option. I'd certainly be watching. Cheering on Manchester. Obviously.

* For the benefit of my many, lovely American readers I've included this link to explain what University Challenge actually is.

Season 4 was superb and, despite all fears, Catherine Tate was magnificent and plausible as Donna. David Tennant continued to inhabit the role of Doctor with ease and completeness to the extent that he IS the Doctor. Only Tom Baker is comparable. And obviously we have four specials to look forward to. 4 RTD specials. He'll want to send Tennant off in style and he'll also doubtless want his own tenure as 'show runner' to end with a bang so expect something big. But after the gut-wrenchingly terrible and one-dimensional Christmas special, it's right to worry a little. I'm hoping for a mini-story arc with a contiguous thread through the specials.

But when the eleventh Doctor wields the sonic screwdriver, I'm yearning for less. I want enemies with plausible ambitions and small stories where the world doesn't need to be at stake every single bloody time the title credits roll. Blink's a great example of a gripping story, well told without one mention of apocalypse. It was written by Stephen Moffat.

Suprisingly, The Sarah-Jane Adventures (a Doctor Who spin-off on CBBC) have lessons to teach. I watched a few episodes last week and, even though it's totally a kid's show, it's excellent. The Temptation of Sarah-Jane was a well-crafted tale (that was certainly better than The Next Doctor) that succeeded by exploring a character, her fears and her background. The result was compelling. Let's have more small please.