Practical steps for employers worried about Twitter embarrassment

I was recently asked to contribute to a Financial Times Q&A on employers and social media, prompted by the misuse of HMV’s Twitter feed by a junior employee.

The original article appears at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aafc284e-6fb1-11e2-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz2NDPj7LBm, with my section pasted below.

I’ve recently set up a Twitter feed for my company and now have concerns that it could be misused by disgruntled employees. How can I ensure it is sufficiently protected?

Craig Elder, head of digital at Blue Rubicon, says:

Done properly, Twitter provides you with a fantastic opportunity to communicate directly with the people most important to any business – its customers. But, as you’ve already recognised, the wrong sort of tweets could quickly erode your reputation and cause long-lasting damage.

With that in mind, it’s surprising how many companies hand complete control of their social channels to relatively junior members of staff – and quite often they are the only ones who even know the password. This leaves those same companies at risk should any of those employees become dissatisfied and decide to use the company Twitter feed to vent their frustrations.

Luckily there are a number of practical steps you can take that will spare you and your company any potential embarrassment.

The first and most important step is ensuring that a member of senior staff retains overall control of the Twitter account and who can log in. Relatively cheap and easy-to-use tools (such as HootSuite) allow you to grant access to your Twitter account to multiple members of staff, each with their own usernames and passwords. Should you at any point need to revoke access, it’s a quick process.

Such tools also allow you to introduce a workflow, meaning that you can delegate responsibility for drafting tweets to more junior staff, while still ensuring that someone more senior will have to approve any content before it is posted. Again, this is a quick and easy process.

Third, create clear social media guidelines that you can distribute to anyone who will have access to the account. Cover what tone of voice is appropriate, how to respond to queries and what sort of content is right for your audience. Quite often setting clear expectations and offering useful guidance is the most effective measure you can take to prevent embarrassing tweeting.

Tagged , ,

Government teaches brands a lesson

I’ve written a piece for Cream’s “Right Brain, Left Brain” blog on why brands could learn a thing or two from the recent rebirth of Number 10 E-Petitions. I’ve posted it below:

What a strange week in the world of digital media.

BBM has gone from cheap group messaging service to the rioter’s organising tool of choice. Two men have been jailed for inciting people to riot using Facebook.

Some politicians are even calling for a social media “blackout” during future unrest (my thoughts on this here).

But there have been positive moments too – not least the Twitter-organised “riot cleanups” that took place across the country.

And, perhaps even more unexpectedly, a much-derided Government website proved that it is finally fit for purpose.

Before now, all the Number 10 E-Petitions site (created way back in 2006) was known for was a joke call for Jeremy Clarkson to be made PM, backed by 50,000 people.

But, after a recent re-launch, it’s now packed with petitions on the issues that really concern people – from measures to prevent future rioting to removing the ban on gay blood donors.

And there’s a really simple lesson in how they’ve done it.

The only real difference between the old version of the site and the new one is a simple commitment: that Parliament will debate any petition that reaches 100,000 signatures.

A real, quantifiable output for your efforts. Users being taken seriously and given control.

And it’s easy to see why this change would make all the difference.

When we’re faced with a fake listening exercise dressed up as a way to “get involved”, we treat it with the derision it deserves.

That’s how you end up with the Clarkson petition. People thought they were being ignored – and the Government’s response (a joke YouTube video) did nothing to counter that belief.

In contrast, when we feel empowered, when we feel there’s actually a chance of something happening as a result of our actions – we take the proposition seriously and engage with it.

But let’s not kid ourselves that this is a problem that only applies to government. Brands are every bit as guilty of promising to involve people, only to subsequently ignore them.

The marketplace is now littered with failed social media campaigns that claim to be listening exercises, but are little more than cheap PR stunts.

Companies that have pulled the plug when they find out that people won’t just say what they want to hear. 

We all know that’s not the way to do things. And, with this new E-Petitons site, we have the proof – albeit proof found in a pretty unexpected place.

Treat people with respect, take them seriously, let them know what they can expect to get in return and you’ll probably have a success on your hands.

And if you don’t, you won’t. Simple, right?

Tagged , ,

Social media is a force for good during difficult days

I’ve written an opinion piece for CNN.com on the riots and why politicians rushing to regulate social media should consider its positive benefits. The first few paragraphs are posted below:

Days of introspection and debate — in both press and parliament — have inevitably followed the greatest civil unrest this country has seen since the early 1980s. Politicians and journalists seem to understand that the underlying problems are complex and can’t be fixed overnight.

Sadly, this cautious approach hasn’t extended to their attempts to understand how relatively small numbers of rioters and looters were able to leave police forces across England looking so flat-footed in their response.

For that, the finger of blame was pointed immediately at social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. Blackberry Messenger (BBM) was also implicated. The argument went that it was thanks to these services that the rioters were able to organise themselves so quickly and effectively.

And, on the surface of things, it’s a tough argument to defeat. One of the side-effects of the web’s ubiquity is an undoubted “acceleration of everything” that has the potential to extend from setting up last-minute drinks to celebrate a friend’s birthday to the organisation of criminal activity.

And, as a result, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that the relevant authorities will investigate “whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

So the government’s approach is clear: targeted action taken against individuals suspected of criminal behaviour. But it has still drawn fierce criticism from the tech-savvy (who claim the proposal is unworkable) and civil liberty-conscious (who, as ever, fear any regulation of the internet at all).

However, other politicians have been less measured than Cameron. Labour MP David Lammy, whose Tottenham constituency was the first to be affected by the violence, called on Blackberry to close their BBM service until the streets were made safe.

Conservative MP Louise Mensch went even further, suggested an enforced “blackout” of social media sites during future disturbances, arguing that it would stop inaccurate rumours about trouble (in no short supply on the evenings of the riots) spreading online.

But how could removing communications tools from the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens in a moment of crisis possibly be the answer? It is exactly this sort of reactionary, ill-thought-out nonsense that we should be on our guard against in the weeks and months ahead.

Politicians in such an apparent rush to regulate social media would also do well to recognise the immense positive contribution made by these sites both during and in the aftermath of the riots, as communities looked for information, reassurance and a positive way to reclaim their streets.

Indeed, one of the most striking images to appear in the wake of the violence — that of defiant brooms being held aloft by volunteers attending a Twitter-organised “riot cleanup” in Clapham Junction — would not even exist were it not for social media.

And anyone who followed the riots live on Twitter will be tell you how terrible a “blackout” would have been — not least because it was often the fastest way to find out where incidents were taking place. After all, it wasn’t just our police who were off the pace: the media also struggled to keep up.

While Ms. Mensch is right to say that rumours were flying around on the nights of the riots, they were massively outweighed by a flood of correct information that helped to keep people informed and, most importantly, safe.

Police forces have also been making full use of social media, posting pictures of suspects on photo sharing sites for quick identification, and using Twitter to report from the courts as sentences are passed, providing followers with the knowledge that action is already being taken against a violent minority.

But one suspects that much of the positive contribution made by social media sites and their community-minded users will be conveniently ignored by those looking to boost their profile by taking aim at a convenient scapegoat.

Let’s hope policy can rise above rhetoric, and we don’t see law-abiding users of these hugely powerful communication tools — which have been an overwhelming force for good during some difficult days — being made to suffer because of the actions of an irresponsible few.

Originally posted at http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/14/elder.uk.social.media/index.html

Tagged , , ,

Location-based services: A mobile opportunity still finding its way?

I recently wrote a think piece for MPG Media Contacts on the subject of location-based services. I’ve posted it below and would be very interested to hear what people reckon…

Near-constant hype in the trade press would suggest that “location-based services” are causing a revolution in consumer behaviour, brought on by a new-found ability to collect amazing discounts and deals in exchange for “checking-in” to shops, bars and restaurants. But is this really the case?

Let’s start by defining exactly what we mean by “location-based services”. Theoretically, they are anything that makes use of the GPS functions on mobile phones. But the area of real interest to advertisers is products like Foursquare or Facebook Places – extensions of the social networking concept which invite users to not just share what they’re doing, but also where they’re doing it.

Foursquare has been on the market for 2 years now, amassing an impressive-looking 7.5 million users worldwide. A social network based around a gaming mechanic, Foursquare allows users to “check-in” to venues  to collect “badges” (rewards for visiting certain places) or even become “mayor” (an award given to the person who has checked in most often over a set period of time).

While it’s been seen as a huge success so far (with figures released in February this year showing 2 million check-ins per day), much of this growth is coming from the US. Indeed, ComScore data shows that there may be fewer than 100,000 regularly active Foursquare users in the UK.

While that’s by no means an insignificant number, it’s dwarfed by the 30 million people in the UK currently using Facebook, 10 million of whom use it on their phones. And these mobile users can also now “check-in” to venues using the recently-launched “Places” feature (which essentially re-creates Foursquare’s core functionality).

Surely this will lead to an explosion of checking-in across the world’s biggest social network? Not yet, it would seem. With Facebook currently being very cagey about how many people are actually using the new feature, it’s safe to assume that Places is still to take off in the way so many in the industry predict that it will.

Indeed, a brief scan of most people’s feeds will show a small proportion of their friends checking-in – often the same people who adopted Foursquare with such great initial enthusiasm. Are the majority of consumers struggling to see a benefit to checking in? It would seem so.

With this in mind, both Facebook and Foursquare are giving retailers the opportunity to reward consumers who do check-in with free products, discounts and other offers. The benefit to retailers is clear – every time a customer checks in to your store to collect a deal, they are telling their friends where they are, advertising your offer and, by extension, also endorsing your business or product.

There’s still some debate to be had about how much this endorsement is worth, with early adopters valuing it somewhere between the price of a cup of coffee (Starbucks) to 20% off the price of a sports car (Mazda). But this is the sort of variation you’d expect from category to category.

However, it’s not just about offering money-off deals. In a potential indicator of future interaction between mobile and outdoor, a campaign for Cheryl Cole’s latest album invited users to check in to poster locations for a chance to win X-Factor tickets.

And the History Channel recently worked with Foursquare to provide “tips” on London landmarks to users of the service. More than 7,500 users checked during the first week of the partnership, demonstrating a demand for useful content and not just discounts. The partnership also points the way to small but increasingly deep interactions between users and brands.

But a technical challenge still remains for users wanting to get started with checking-in. For starters, they need to be armed with a smart phone (with GPS enabled and the right app installed) and, most importantly, be in a place where they can receive a data signal – often a challenge in itself.

So what could happen in the future to make things a bit easier for users? Certainly, Near Field Communication promises to make location-based marketing simpler, as customers will only have to touch their phone against a reader at the venue to collect deals and tell friends where they are. 

And while NFC may still be a long way from being a common feature on mobile phones, the rumoured arrival of O2’s “mobile wallet” (which allows users pay for everyday items like coffee by swiping their phones) this summer can only serve to stimulate demand for NFC technology.

But what of the short term? With Facebook currently looking for new partners for a second burst of Places launch activity, it could well be that one of these businesses hits upon something that has so far eluded everyone: a deal of significant interest to consumers for checking-in to become mainstream user behaviour.

Indeed, while location-based marketing seems be some way from a tipping point, its current state of adolescence presents brands with an excellent opportunity to “test the waters” while the rules are still being defined.

And the low cost of transferring an existing “offline” deal to Foursquare or Facebook Places has certainly encouraged experimentation. For example, Yo! Sushi’s voucher-like offer of a free meal for two to customers who checked in using Places was taken up by an impressive 1,000 Facebook users within 24 hours of launch.

So while brands would be well-advised not to put all their eggs in the location-based basket just yet, it’s clear that these platforms can already play an important role as part of a multi-channel integrated campaign – particularly in the retail and restaurant categories.

But it’s also evident that new innovation in this space will help to move location-based  services from a niche concern towards mainstream adoption – and the team here at MPG Media Contacts will be keeping a close eye on this evolution so our clients are perfectly placed to take advantage.

Tagged , , , ,

The real value of crowdsourcing

How can we use the principle of crowd sourcing in politics? The last couple of weeks have seen Labour and the Conservatives attempt to get their supporters involved in the campaign with strikingly different results.

Last Wednesday we launched “Your Budget Response“, a project that put the collective wisdom of the British public to work on helping to unpick the small print in this year’s Red Book.

As an opposition party, there’s an obvious asymmetry of resources between us and the Government – who have a huge number of civil servants at their disposal. A project like this is an attempt to level the playing field by encouraging anyone with access to a computer to join our team, pore over the figures and find the “devil in the detail”.

The submissions (over 1000 of them) were sent direct to our Treasury team for further analysis. And we got some great stuff which, now that the Budget debate is over, we’ll be publishing on Conservatives.com over the coming days.

This exercise proves that George Osborne’s “army of armchair auditors” is definitely out there, ready and willing to go through the figures and hold the Government to account – uncovering the truth behind any manipulated stats or misleading economics.

The idea for the site was itself sourced from the crowd. The blogger Dizzy Thinks (his fantastic blog also an example of what can happen when politics and technology collide) pointed out that Gordon Brown’s “10p tax con” (the unraveling of which was the defining moment of the 2008 budget) was first spotted by bloggers and that the Conservatives should take this as an indication of the level of expertise that could potentially be tapped into.

In contrast, Labour have invited their supporters to submit ideas or designs for their next poster, which will be displayed on 10 digital ad sites in London and Manchester over Easter weekend.

They’re displaying the shortlist over on the Labour website just now, and while I don’t really want to get into the aesthetics, it’s really striking how negative and personal the majority of the adverts are.

I guess time will tell whether Labour’s foray into crowd sourcing pays off for them, but I can’t help but wonder if they’re tapping into “the wisdom of crowds” or just the hostility of the hardcore activist.

Originally posted at http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/redyellowblue/archive/2010/04/02/69712.aspx

Tagged , ,

Reaching undecided voters online

There can be little doubt that the role of the internet in the 2010 election will be significantly different to what we saw in 2005. The 3 parties haven’t all just changed their leaders – their overall approach to a medium that played (at best) a bit-part at the last General Election has also changed completely.

Through blogs and Twitter, we’ve seen a revolution in the way political parties communicate internally – with sites like ConservativeHome becoming must-reads for party members messaging each other about the political events of the day.

But the big question at this election is how best to use the internet to reach out beyond the people who will already vote for you to the huge number of undecided voters. We know they’re unlikely to be reading the political blogs or following even their local MP on Twitter – so how do you reach them?

Well, we know they’re definitely searching on Google, connecting with friends on Facebook and quite often starting any web browsing session on a portal like MSN or Yahoo to find out what’s going in the world today.

That’s why search plays such a big part in our online strategy. For example, when we relaunched Conservatives.com in 2008, we ensured that the site was properly optimised for search so users could find key policy information easily using Google. And that work paid off, as proven by recent research by the natural search conversion agency Tamar.

And Google Adwords, which allow us to strategically place messages according to users’ search terms, are important too. For example, on Wednesday anyone searching on Budget-related terms from “Alistair Darling” through to “car scrappage scheme” would be presented with an advert for George Osborne’s video response on YouTube.

Research by Diffusion found that our strategy on Facebook has also paid off, with innovations like our “donate your status” campaign during last year’s European elections helping to send our key messages from our supporters on to thousands of undecided voters. PR Week concluded that the Conservative Party “dominates” Facebook, with more supporters on the platform than the other two parties combined.

We’ve also recognised that it’s important to engage with people on the sites they already visit rather than expecting them to come to us. MSN (which reaches an astonishing 50% of the UK online audience) recently played host to an interactive webcast with David Cameron, and we have worked with Mumsnet, LinkedIn, the Army Rumour Service, Money Saving Expert and SAGA in the past few months alone.

Mark Hanson (writing on this very blog) is right to say that it’s important to keep your own supporters informed, and to give them the tools they need to fight a successful election campaign, both offline and online. That’s why we launched MyConservatives.com, which allows our supporters to fundraise and campaign for the candidates they support and the issues they care about.

It’s also why we’ve invested so much in e-mail, which remains by far the best way to get in touch with large groups of supporters. ReturnPath research found we scored a “landslide” victory over the other parties when it comes to e-mail, with Labour going a full 58 days without sending a message to their subscribers.

So, with the election campaign proper just around the corner, it’s going to be an exciting few weeks and I’m looking forward to keeping you up to date on this blog.

Originally posted on Brand Republic’s “Red, Yellow and Blue Blog” at http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/redyellowblue/archive/2010/03/26/69028.aspx

Tagged , , , , ,

The team in Wired

The Conservative Party’s New Media team were profiled in Wired magazine recently. I was described as both “cerebral” and “Scottish”. One of these is definitely true.

Read the article in full at http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2010/04/features/david-camerons-battle-to-connect?page=all

70831475

Tagged , , ,

Engaging a mass audience online

Amid all the buzz about the influence of social networking sites like Twitter on political campaigning, we often forget about how the majority of people in the UK get their news online – through portals like Yahoo and MSN.

With 22 million unique monthly users, MSN (originally the Microsoft Network) reaches approximately 50% of the entire UK online audience. With Windows Live Messenger, MSN’s hugely popular instant messaging program, included the figure reaches 27million. In comparison, Twitter is used by around 3.5m people in the UK every month.

As the default homepage for all PCs shipped with Windows (and that’s a lot of computers), MSN reaches right across the wide online spectrum – including “silver surfers” and casual web users – very many of whom eschew traditional newspapers or TV news.

And that’s why the event we held this week at MSN – a Q&A webcast with David Cameron – was so important. It gave David the opportunity to engage with a really important community that includes a lot of people who will be voting for the first time when the General Election is finally called.

And the level of engagement was very high – we had a huge number of questions come in on a wide range of topics, and the live webcast on Thursday evening (filmed in front of an audience made up mostly of first-time voters) was broadcast to an even bigger online audience.

We’ll be holding a lot more events like this in the run-up to the election as we look to ensure that as many people as possible get the opportunity to put their questions to David and the Shadow Cabinet and hear about our plans to change Britain.

If you missed the MSN event, a replay is available to watch in full here. And if you want to find out first about future webcast events, click here to sign up for our regular e-mail bulletins.

Originally posted at http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2010/02/19/engaging-a-mass-audience-online/

Tagged , ,

Showing up in Grazia

As part of a piece looking at whether Barack Obama’s digital success could be repeated here, Grazia profiled some people on the UK political scene (including me).

The full article isn’t available online, but the profiles appear below.

56818533

Tagged , ,

What happens when you let users control the agenda?

It’s often said that people aren’t interested in politics. But we know that, when you address an issue that people care about, that generalisation simply isn’t true.

And there are few things that Britain cares more about than the NHS, as evidenced by the explosion of the #welovethenhs hashtag on Twitter a few months back.

So, when we published our draft manifesto on health last Monday, we knew there would be a lot of online activity. But we didn’t want to just publish the document – we wanted to start a conversation with people about exactly what they want from their National Health Service.

So we used Google Moderator, the same tool President Obama used in his “Open for Questions” initiative, to source questions for a live webcast in which David would take users’ questions.

The voting aspect of Moderator allowed us to open the process right up, so we weren’t just inviting users to submit questions – we were asking them to pick which ones would be answered.

We were told this was a risky approach (many of the popular questions from Obama’s event were focused on marijuana legislation) but we were struck by the high quality of questions and the huge number of votes placed on them – over 40,000 in just four days.

Is this proof that if you trust the people, you will get good results? We certainly think so, and it makes me think back to an argument made by the filmmaker Ivo Gormley about the Number 10 petitions site, which he said was filled with joke petitions simply because nobody actually believed their views would be taken seriously.

In this case, we were clear from the outset that David would be addressing the top questions – and we’d only intervene if questions were in some way offensive or not on the subject of the NHS – which we hardly had to do at all.

The webcast itself, which was broadcast from the King’s Fund in London, went off without a hitch – and we were even able to get some questions in from Twitter and the live chat that accompanied the event.

The other chapters of the draft manifesto will be published in the coming weeks, and we’re looking forward to holding similar events where the users will control the agenda. If you’d like to be kept up to date with this and other online initiatives, don’t forget to sign up to our e-mail newsletters.

Originally posted at http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2010/01/11/what-happens-when-you-let-users-control-the-agenda/

Tagged , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.