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?

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.

Read the rest here: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/14/elder.uk.social.media/index.html