Revolution magazine is reporting that Twitter founder Biz Stone has said that the microblogging platform will release additional tools for businesses later this year:
“Twitter will launch a range of tools later this year aimed at helping both big brands and small businesses use the microblogging service, co-founder Biz Stone has revealed to Revolution.
“Stone told Revolution that Twitter’s long awaited commercial model is likely to focus on generating revenue through add-on tools aimed at businesses of all sizes, rather than advertising.”
Kudos to the guys at Revolution for the scoop, even if this was largely expected. The full interview is in the mag’s June issue, out tomorrow.
I’m all for web businesses trying to avoid building their businesses on deteriorating advertising revenues, but the Twitter move is very interesting.
Twitter is a fantastic tool for businesses, both for marketing and customer service and it is very interesting to see Stone acknowledging this and making efforts to support this use case:
“We think there are opportunities to support commercial use. How can we help a small bakery Twittering that the cookies are coming out of the oven and the big company using Twitter for customer support? We will be looking ways to encourage and support this.”
I’m excited to see what the tools will be. Excited to see how we can use them with our clients. And intrigued to learn whether Twitter users will continue to embrace a platform that will be driven by commercial objectives.
The beauty of Twitter is that it is opt-in. This could be a winning formula.
With over 25,000 apps and one billion downloads to date, it is no surprise that other mobile phone manufacturers are keen to capture some of the app-mania that Apple has successfully created.
And today sees the launch of Nokia’s effort – Ovi. So now all those who are fed up with iPhone fanboys bragging about their latest app (and I totally hold my hands up) can join in the fun. Possibly…
So far, the launch hasn’t gone particularly well with the traffic spikes causing all sorts of outages. And, with it, some negativepublicity to boot.
To be fair, Nokia responded pretty quickly (but not before TechCrunch got to the story) and some things just can’t be predicted. But surely, with a launch as big as this, high traffic volumes should be expected?
And the problem is that what should be an exciting and bold launch to counter Apple’s undoubted success, turns very negative from the offset.
There is no excuse for negative publicity if the reason for the negativity could’ve been avoided. It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth. One that I am sure Nokia could do without.
It means we all end up writing about the problematic launch rather than the product.
I have been alive for 9,471 days and share the same birth date as Blue singer Lee Ryan – the 17th June (yes, just round the corner), which incidentally, was 168th day of the year in 1983 when the sun set at 9.20pm and there was a waxing crescent moon.
And you would be quick to ask: what does this mean and why I’m writing about it?
But the right question to ask is how I know this useless information. And the answer to that is through the internet’s latest Google-killer: Wolfram|Alpha (I’m not sure if the vertical line is obligatory, but included it just in case!).
The computational knowledge engine Wolfram|Alpha was launched this week to the usual flurry of media attention whenever a ‘Google-killer’ comes along. Despite the rather strange moniker (named after the creators, Wolfram Research, in turn named after British businessman Stephen Wolfram), the search engine is seen by many as the way the web in going. The semantic web.
Others far more wise than me have described in detail how the site works:
“It doesn’t mine the Web for pre-existing facts. It mines limited databases that the Wolfram Alpha team has amassed, curated and vetted for accuracy. Then it performs computations on those facts, giving you new, original data. Makers say it’s a Web engine that “answers questions.”
And many have poured scorn on the site (which is clearly still short of a lot of data). And not surprisingly, The Register has questioned its usefulness:
“I know that in evaluating a Stephen Wolfram production, my meager intelligence quotient may not be sufficient to grasp the gravity of what I’m dealing with. So I don’t feel all that put down that I can’t figure out how Alpha is useful to anyone outside of a small audience of college professors and professional engineers.”
This strikes me as unfair. I can certainly see a use case for a data bank of knowledge that deals in facts (unlike Google) that are credible and reliable (unlike Wikipedia).
“Wolfram Alpha couldn’t help me in finding cheaper car insurance. However, when I needed to know the number of vertices of a truncated icosahedron it did the job brilliantly! That optimises everything about the perception of Wolfram Alpha – it’s not a Google killer, it’s not a Google competitor, and was probably never meant to be – its self-proclaimed long term goal is to make ‘all systematic knowledge immediately computable and accessible to everyone’.”
So, it’s got some way to go. It’s not Google, or Wikipedia and has some early detractors…
I blogged last week about the Evening Standard’s relaunch advertising campaign and last week, the new issue hit the news-stands.
So what’s it like?
Well. the revised version has much to commend it (as long as we ignore the ridiculously large and slightly dull new masthead). The ES has focused on exactly what I suggested it should – valuable news content. Gone are the pages and pages of breaking news (because, let’s face it, most commuters will have read most of this during the day at the office), replaced instead by in-depth features and analysis.
It is a good balance and one that clearly differentiates it from the other freesheets London commuters have on offer.
The relaunch sees a revised version of the ’sorry’ advertising campaign, this time with a ‘promise’ to its existing (and new) readers.
So far, so good. We’ll see what happens when the next circulation figures come out.
I love my PVR. It lets me record anything and watch it whenever I want. Except on a Wednesday evening when Twitter ruins everything. There I am, working hard late into the evening and, without thinking, I check in with Twitter to see what’s happening (read: procrastinate). And there it is, too late: “xx has been fired”
But, even though the good ‘ol PVR may buck the trend, this is quickly becoming the way of the world. We are living in a real-time, uber-connected society where if something happened yesterday, it’s ancient history. The real-time, social web is here.
And two developments in the world of search over the last week have merely increased this mindset.
On Tuesday, Google announced a new feature called Search Options:
“a collection of tools that let you slice and dice your results and generate different views to find what you need faster and easier.”
The new tool, which appears at the top left of every search, allows you to refine search results by criteria including format (e.g. videos. forums, reviews) and time of creation (e.g. past 24 hours, past week, past year).
This would allow a user to search for particular forum posts written in the last 24 hours for example – very useful and a great example of the real-time, social web.
The second development is, at this stage, more of a rumour, but is equally fascinating. According to Cnet, Twitter will soon begin indexing the pages that users refer to in their tweets and including these in search results performed on the site at search.twitter.com. As Cnet notes:
“This will make Twitter Search a much more complete index of what’s happening in real time on the Web and make it an even more credible competitor to Google Search for people looking for very timely content.”
The two announcements clearly reflect the success of each company. Google wants a piece of Twitter (as buying it clearly isn’t going to happen yet) and Twitter is eyeing some of Google’s search pie for its monetisation plans.
They are both exiting developments, and there are some key considerations as a result for businesses and brands:
Updated content is vital, static websites are history – blogs, news, forums, social media activity will all give you more chance of being included in ‘recent searches’
Multimedia is more important than ever – Google’s inclusion of video as a search option, combined with the time search option is particularly telling
The echo-chamber is growing – with the real-time, social web, problems can become disasters in minutes, so be prepared and ready for the unexpected
As for me, I just need to modify my viewing habits!
Yesterday, while reading the news, I stumbled upon this very interesting article.
In it, Associated Press journalist Shawn Pogatchnik explains that Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a phony quote on Wikipedia, and he claims he has done so to test how our globalised, increasingly internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news. Well, journalism very much flunked this one.
I’ll explain why: The sociology student made up the following quote, which he added to composer Maurice Jarre’s Wikipedia page just hours after he died on March 28th. (By the way, when you Google Maurice Jarre, his Wikipedia page is the first result that appears.)
“One could say my life itself has been one long soundtrack, music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head that only I can hear.”
But I believe that the problem here does not lie with Wikipedia, whose editors acted fast to remove the quote. The real issue is with the journalists, who acted even faster to copy and paste the quote without checking its source, in an endless pursuit to produce the news fast.
Even worse, high-calibre publications such as The Guardian fell for this hoax. At least the publication later nobly acknowledged their mistake and apologised.
I’ve taken the odd journalism class in my day, and one of the first things I’ve learned was to check every source as many times as possible, to ensure that stories are accurate, and that any quotes can be traced back to a person, place and time. After all, good journalism is not just about a great story, but it is also about accuracy and veracity.
The Twitterati are up in arms. And this time, their fury is directed at the mothership.
If you’ve ventured onto micro-blogging service Twitter today, you will certainly have noticed the new hash tag (a way of grouping or categorising themes or similar subject matter) being used: #fixreplies
Here is the problem in a nutshell:
When you follow someone on Twitter, their updates are automatically included in your ‘feed’ so that you can follow their tweets. To start a conversation with someone, all you have to do is to begin a tweet with a Twitter ID and this directs the comment directly at them (e.g. “@Dannywhatmough what do you think about Twitter?”). Normally, if you are following the person who asks the question, but not the person the question is directed at, then that tweet does not appear in your feed.
Confused? It gets better:
Until yesterday, Twitter gave users the option to include these ‘conversational’ tweets in their feeds after all and many really liked this feature as it introduced them to potential new followers that were friends with their followers.
“We’ve updated the Notices section of Settings to better reflect how folks are using Twitter regarding replies. Based on usage patterns and feedback, we’ve learned most people want to see when someone they follow replies to another person they follow—it’s a good way to stay in the loop. However, receiving one-sided fragments via replies sent to folks you don’t follow in your timeline is undesirable. Today’s update removes this undesirable and confusing option.”
And all hell has broken loose.
This whole episode raises two questions:
Did Twitter not anticipate that this would be unpopular? They, more than anyone, should know the power of the crowd and, on top of this, how many people were actually using this feature. I don’t buy the point that it was confusing new users, as this feature was opt-in so new users wouldn’t even know about it unless they searched the ‘Settings’ options.
The second questions is, if they did anticipate this backlash (and I can’t believe they didn’t), why did they still to ahead? Was there some technical problem with this feature? Was it putting too main strain on the servers?
Whatever the reason, this is one big PR disaster for Twitter and it is just so ironic that their wonderful technology is being used as the echochamber! It’ll be fascinating to see how they manage it and how long it takes them to add it back in.
Update: It seems my thoughts about potential technical issues with the feature. Here is Twitter’s latest post entitled Whoa Feedback:
“We’re getting a ton of extremely useful feedback about yesterday’s update to Settings. The engineering team reminded me that there were serious technical reasons why that setting had to go or be entirely rebuilt—it wouldn’t have lasted long even if we thought it was the best thing ever. Nevertheless, it’s amazing to wake up and see all the tweets about this change.
“We’re hearing your feedback and reading through it all. One of the strongest signals is that folks were using this setting to discover and follow new and interesting accounts—this is something we absolutely want to support. Our product, design, user experience, and technical teams have started brainstorming a way to surface a new, scalable way to address this need.
“Please stay tuned and thank you again for all the feedback.”
Infamy is ours at last! Wildfire has featured on tech PR’s notorious gossip blog …the world’s leading….
Our crime? Appearing at the top of the Google rankings for ‘UK Technology PR Agency‘. It may be tongue-in-cheek, but the post makes a valid point: the UK’s larger tech PR agencies (but not just tech) are ignoring the power SEO for their own businesses.
And this begs the question: are they failing to embrace or explore the power of digital as a PR and marketing specialism?
This is a sweeping statement and is perhaps unfair; there are many fine digital-specialists at the leading PR agencies, often cooped up in digital departments, fighting for mind share and budget.
Our focus (and I believe the right focus for our clients) is to weave digital, social media and the Web into everything we do. This means understanding Google, Twitter, SEO and the rest.
The next step is to determine when and when not to use them in campaigns, strategies and projects. Not using social media because that is our ’specialism’ but because it makes sense for a client’s objectives.
We aim to be the ‘world’s leading’ PR agency, and that means learning and using the very latest trends.
For me, there are two wider issues that this post clarifies:
Marketing is changing at a rapid pace – The PR industry is being forced to wake-up and realise that the world is a very different place to column inches, press releases and advertising value equivalents (AVE). Agencies should be the place where these new techniques, tactics and strategies are identified, developed and designed.
The opportunity for smaller businesses is greater than ever – small businesses can use digital marketing to punch above their weight. Blogs and social networks empower businesses to become publishers and content creators themselves, engaging with customers and prospects directly.
If you’re interested in learning more about how PR and marketing are changing and want your business to punch above its weight, then get in touch.
Econsultancy published an interesting blog post recently asking what the future of journalism really depended on.
Patricia Robles asks:
“if journalism is to have a solid foundation to stand on going forward, asking the simple question ‘What do consumers want?‘ may provide the answer to everything else.”
I’ve bloggedonnumerousoccasions about the future of journalism and personally don’t hold much hope for the model as we see it at the moment. But if there is to be any chance of survival, it will depend on exactly what Patricia identifies above: What do consumers want
In a sense, ‘traditional’ here-today-gone-tomorrow news holds little inherent value for the consumer/reader, media outlet or the business featured.
And its this ‘value exchange’ that is so important, especially with the rise prominence of social media. Social networks, blogs, viral marketing all depend on one thing: the exchange, sharing or distribution of ‘value’ as seen by the distributor/sharer and the recipient.
In the ‘old days’, value was determined by editors and journalists and there were (and still are) practical reasons for this. The internet has moved the goalposts.
But this isn’t a bad thing. This new distribution model (because that is what social networks essentially are or can be) has boundless opportunity for media organisations. Look at professional blog site Econsultancy. It has embraced Twitter and is now receiving substantial traffic from it.
And just today, we learn that the Telegraph is now receiving around 8% of its traffic from social networks. The Guardian too is using these new networks to its benefit, with Guardian Tech now approaching a half million follower base on Twitter.
This success is all dependent on producing ‘value’. Online, we are less inclined to view media organisations as ‘brands’. Whilst offline, we will buy a paper or a magazine and read through the substantial amount of content contained within. We don’t consume in the same way on the web. We look at individual articles or pieces of content, often accessed through third party sites (think Google news, RSS feeds, social sources etc.).
Value is increasingly attributed via social means (through friends, followers or recommendations) rather than an affinity to a certain source (”I’m a Times reader”).
So what does this mean for the media? They have to work harder to make their content valuable. To make it something that enough people want to share.
And much of this lies in its uniqueness. If I have two million articles about swine flu, which one do I choose to read? Possibly I’ll go to my favourite website, social network or to Google. Either way, the odds are far more heavily stacked against media organisations online than they were offline.
Which is why having something new or interesting to say is important.
And this is an important aspect for PRs and marketers to remember, both when constructing their own online content and when attempting to influence the traditional media.
If you are based in London, you might have seen a billboard advertising campaign run by the Evening Standard (see above). The series of posters are obviously identifiable by just one word: ‘Sorry’.
Ahead of its relaunch on 11th May (complete with a new editor, design…), the paper is running the campaign (created by agency McCann Erickson) to apologise to Londoners for its behaviour in the past. This follows research carried out earlier this year by the paper’s new editor – Geordie Greig – which found that Londoners view the daily title as ‘negative’.
The paper has suffered recently following the onslaught of two nightly freesheets – the London Paper and the Standard’s sister-title London Lite. And, on top of this, it reported a fall in circulation in March this year. This, following the purchase of 75.1% of the paper by Lebedev, the Russian billionaire and former KGB agent in February from former owner Daily Mail & General Trust.
So is this a wise move? I see two sides to this.
On one hand, you have to admire the semblance of transparency. The paper is putting its hands up in a very public way and taking responsibility for past mistakes, promising a brighter future. With the way things are going, its probably the last chance for the loss-making title to give its print circulation a much needed boost.
However, you have to wonder whether this campaign will simply leave Londoners dazed and confused. Sure, once they discover the subplot, they will still understand the key message – things are changing – but wont the lasting subconscious image of the brand merely be ‘apologetic’.
The chairman of rival ad agency Fallon, Laurence Green, is quoted in the Guardian today saying:
“I think the truth is the Evening Standard is between a rock and a hard place of threats to its business [model] so the campaign is either desperation or reckless ambition… It is a massive role of the dice, but admirable. The question will be on follow-through. They have raised expectations on what comes next, which means pressure on providing a great product.”
My personal view follows on from this final comment. I’ve never really viewed the Evening Standard as negative, despite its obvious political allegiance. Where I do think it can possibly differentiate itself in what is now a crowded market, is by empahsising its aim to be the quality London paper as opposed to the younger, more ‘trashy’ upstarts. Perhaps the refresh will embody those values.
Of course, all this speculation is perhaps immaterial as increasingly London commuters will be reaching for their iPhone. Blackberry or Kindle, rather than a 50p for the newstand.
The relaunch sees a revised version of the ’sorry’ advertising campaign, this time with a ‘promise’ to its existing (and new) readers.
On Tuesday, Google 
