George Lucas was right, 'The audience IS listening'
Facebook has brought together an audience of incredible numbers. The social networking giant is today a community of people that keeps on growing, creating for businesses an opportunity to reach out directly to consumers. But here lies the question, why are businesses still looking like ‘rabbits in the headlights’ and failing to truly engage with audiences that can help many survive during these hard economic times?
Today, Facebook has over 750 million users worldwide. For many businesses that figure is a fantasy, after all, are we going to engage with so many? So let’s narrow this figure down into more manageable and relevant numbers. In the US there are over 154 million ‘active’ users, Indonesia comes in second with 40 million and a 16 per cent penetration rate, while in the UK there are 30 million users reaching half of the population. Malaysia has over 11 million users accounting for nearly 1 in 2 residents, while Singapore has a very active 2.5 million with 54% of people being on Facebook.
And the figures don’t stop there. Here are some more, more than have of Facebook users access the network each day, half of which do so through their mobile phones. And those that access Facebook through a smartphone or other mobile device are ‘twice as active as Facebook compared to non-mobile users.’
For many companies and organisations, these numbers are very 2-dimensional. The audience is there, but the history and culture of 20 century business dictates that for many they still broadcast to them through a given Facebook Page.
Audience engagement is much more than a Facebook Page and the apps and tabs that these Pages have. It is about, well, engagement. It is about listening and delivering. In business it is about meeting needs. And to meet business needs you needs to re-invent itself, spending time speaking an engaging with your various audiences.
Many companies are focused on the comfort of your own structure. Safe in the knowledge of how they have always delivered their business. But what about your audience? Have they been happy in how they have received your business?
As Facebook show’s us, people today are connected online. For many they check their network, their community first thing in the morning. People seek input, advice and support from their community that they have before they have spent money. Today, people are happy to share bad experience, which shapes many companies brands and reputations.
While engagement is certainly not as cheap as business thinks it is, it creates a much more personal relationship than brands have ever had with it’s audiences. It creates the loyalty, the holy-grail of business relationships that many aspire for.
Think about it this way, how do you like being talked at?
Social media sites Facebook and twitter were blamed today by Government and Metropolitan Police spokespeople for fanning the UK #Londonriots and looting over the weekend. Fingers were pointed at these social networking sites for the fact that they enable people to send out calls for people to gather together.
The disturbances happened after the fatal shooting of Tottenham father of four Mark Duggan who was allegedly killed in a minicab on Thursday by police firearm officers.
Blaming these sites is just placing a distraction for the real reasons for the unlawful behaviour that took place, highlighting a lack of understanding or will to understand of how people use social media today.
In fact, as Partner at Engine group Jonathan Akwue points out in his blog, it wasn’t Facebook or Twitter that fuelled the riots, but most probably BBM – BlackBerry Messenger. BlackBerry is the phone of choice amongst a young demographic that took part in the riots, primarily because of BBM is virtually free (You just need a BlackBerry data plan) and unlike Facebook and Twitter, which are both open, it’s truly private.
BBM messages are encrypted and run through Research In Motion’s Canadian servers, and issue that has created many problems for the firm in India and the UAE, where they were threatened with being banned unless their encrypted communications were ‘opened-up’.
Blaming social networks is just a distraction, facilitating a reason for a possible change in policy that could be rushed through without understanding how these communication channels work. But think about it, why would anybody wanting to do a crime share it on an open network? Why not use a private channel? Why can’t lawmakers understand this simple fact?
During the weekend riots Twitter was the channel used to report what was unfolding in Tottenham, Edmonton and Brixton. A channel that captured in real-time what was organised on the locked-down BBM network. If you wanted a real-time update you went to Twitter and used relevant search terms.
As Omar said in The Wire, “the game’s out there, and it’s play or get played. That simple.” And at the moment the authorities are getting played. Blaming social media confirms the distance that exists between them and the reasons that trigger the unrests.
*** UPDATE ***
BlackBerry UK have released the following statement in response to the use of BBM, ‘As in all markets around the world where BlackBerry is available, we cooperate with local telecommunications operators, law enforcement and regulatory officials. Similar to other technology providers in the UK we comply with The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and co-operate fully with the Home Office and UK police forces.’
UK national tabloid The News Of The World (#NOTW) is caught in the eye of a very public storm as revelations allege their involvement in the phone hacking of not just the murdered Milly Dowler, but the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and victims of the July 7th London bombing.
The esteemed Nicholas Tomalin, said that ‘the only qualities needed for real success in Journalism are ratlike cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability.‘ He was not wrong.
It is this cunning that’s got The Guardian’sNick Davies the story, as it’s served up insight into the activities that were allegedly common place at the News Of The World. But let’s not single them out exclusively. News outlets are in competition with one another and it would be odd to think that they were the only ones guilty. In fact, In the 2006 ‘What Price Privacy Now?’ report (below) the Information Commission highlighted that 305 journalists had been identified during Operation Motorman as customers driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information. Have a look at the list and you’ll be surprised by some of the titles that were named and shamed. The various reports confirm two methods that journalists and private investigators use to get information, including, ‘through corruption, or more usually by some form of deception, generally known as ‘blagging’. Blaggers pretend to be someone they are not in order to wheedle out the information they are seeking.’
Phone-hacking is really just the tip of the iceberg. Given that most people do not change the default password on their phone it is pretty easy to intercept voice messages. But, getting information on addresses, car registration requires deception and/or as the law describes, corruption.
The above report highlights the case of how in November 2006 Stephen and Sharon Anderson of St Ives in Cambridgeshire pleaded guilty to obtaining and selling information unlawfully whilst operating as private investigators. They used ‘blagging’ techniques to obtain and attempt to obtain personal information about individuals from a number of organisations including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, British Telecommunications plc and various banks.
So, while our eyes are currently on The News Of The World, the real question is, what about organisations that private investigators get their data from? How safe is your data – your bank details, phone numbers, your bills and tax information? And how ready are these businesses for the questions that must be asked? If you work PR in-house or agency-side are you ready for the reputation of your client or employer being questioned? And questions about how safe customers data is? And today, when we work online, how safe our our emails and our personal profiles?
News Of The World’s official line that it was all down to a ‘rogue reporter’ just did not wash from a public relations perspective. While it might have held back the criticism, it was like putting a finger in the dam.
Some newsrooms are aggressive places with boiler-room like cultures. You have to get the story. You don’t ask questions about the how, you just need to make sure that all the pieces fit together and that your legal team sign it off. All of course with the safety net of ‘Public Interest.’ But what is the definition of public interest? And why is the very quiet Press Complaint Commission so neutral? The PCC’s statement was just pointless.
Carter-Ruck Partner Magnus Boyd says, “public interest is always the justification used for such intrusion. It appears the lack of an adequate definition of public interest has allowed many spurious claims to the public interest.“ He says, “At the moment only Ofcom and the PCC offer working definitions of what is in the public interest and both are deliberately vaugue so as to retain sufficient flexibility and applicability.”
“Conversely, however, the lack of precision in the definition of ‘public interest’ allows the concept to be cited on ‘a rather tired and formulaic basis’ in many cases as Mr Justice Eady noted. What is interesting to the public may not neceassarily be in the public interest but we can no longer afford to seek to define it by ommission or by the adage, ‘you’ll know it when you see it’.” We need to define what the public interest is in a way that the general public can understand and relate to and which will have sufficient flexibilty to adapt to changing circumstances without being all things to all men”
Talking about celebrity reporting Boyd goes on to explain, “Ironically, celebrity reporting usually requires the least invasive investigation techniques – there are usually people ready to talk off the record and perpetuate the gossip. What may well emerge from recent events is that hacking and blagging were used far more in the investigation of financial and corporate stories than readers may have realised as well as more general news items.”
Up an until The Guardian revealed that the phone of Milly Dowler had been hacked the story seemed distant from the public. It was an issue that just affected celebrities, people, as some might claim, that courted the media. But knowing to what lengths certain media outlets would go to has turned the tide.
A social media campaign by the public has been targeting not just readers of the paper but companies that advertise in the News of the World. Public revulsion is pushing this gossip paper into a tight corner. Companies like Ford, Mitsubishi, NPower, Virgin Holidays have cut their advertising from the title.
The Daily Telegraph’s Harry Wallop commented on Twitter, ‘NotW makes c£35m from ads + c£135m from sales. Few weeks of dropped ads won’t hit paper hard. Reader loyalty is what matters.’
The community is using Twitter and Facebook to spread their disgust and it’s having an impact, with subscribers to The Sun and other News International cancelling their subscriptions.
Social media can whip-up a storm and highlight public sentiment in real-time. Give the community and argument and it will express it’s view. But let’s remember, they are not the only guilty party and PR’s need to be ready for the questions about data, information and privacy that now need to be asked.
****UPDATE***
The Press Complain’s Commission yesterday released a statement that, well, didn’t say much apart from it being unhappy with the conduct of one of it’s members.
Labour MP Alun Michael, himself a former journalist, speaking in an emergency debate about phone-hacking in the Commons yesterday, said: “The PCC is well meaning, but frankly it’s a joke, the public deserve better and the journalists deserve better. The PCC clearly has neither the will nor the ability to change things. What we need is an independent body, that is robust, effective, and has the powers to investigate and enforce. That would be a major step forward.
The four-page document is the IOC’s attempt to recapture the ground it never had when Twitter became the must-have channel for those competing at the winter Vancouver 2010 games.
In the guidelines the IOC ‘actively encourages and supports athletes and other accredited persons at the Olympic Games to … post, blog and tweet their experiences.’ it directs those competing to avoid using social networking sites ‘for commercial and/or advertising purposes.’ If athletes and other accredited persons do break these guidelines then they risk accreditation being withdrawn. More worrying for athletes is the threat of possible expulsion from the games.
So how will these guidelines affect the work of public relations agencies working with athletes and their sponsors? Will non-accredited sponsors see these guidelines as a red rag to a bull? How strong will ambush marketing play during the 2012 Olympics? Remember how Dutch beer company Bavaria got, as The Daily Telegraph describes, ‘36 women wearing skimpy orange dresses attend the Holland versus Denmark game‘ to promote Dutch Bavaria beer in breach of Fifa guidelines. Organisers of the stunt were then arrested.
What are your thoughts? How important will social networking play for brands that are sitting outside the tent and that will never be able to be a participant in the Olympic experience?
The comments were made in the Chamber at the Palace of Westminster hours before legal teams met at the High Court to discuss said gagging order, with one party seeking to have it overturned. Sir Fred himself did not object to the removal of the injunction, which enables the media to run with a story that will put plenty of heat on him once again.
My view is that the press and the individuals using these injunctions and super-injunctions are right. The problem is that in between both arguments lies what is known as public interest, a term used by the media as a ‘catch-all.’ With this self-regulated tool, the media can invade the privacy of anybody and any organisation. And there lies the problem. Organisations need to be accountable, as do the people working for them and for government. That said, there is a fine line that divides a mistake from the effect it has on an organisation.
The law has always been a tool in the public relations armoury. Reputation management has used the law to gag a story from being discussed in the media, very much under the impression that if the media is not able to run the story then nobody will know the issues that can be damaging to their clients reputations and trust. This is naïve, stupid and out dated. Public relations is rarely able to repair the damage that requires this kind of force.
Yes, there is a need for Privacy and there is a need for injunctions and super-injunctions. The question is, should they be made available and affordable to everyone? Yes. Should there be further debate on which applications receive one? Yes. Duplicity and double-standard needs to be outted. From a public relations perspective, reputation management is always harder when the damage has been done, even though said damage is not yet in the public arena.
How many times have we as PR professionals held our head in our hands wandering how we can repair the damage by some ill-conceived decision or action?
The current debate about injunctions and super-injunctions is of course in the media because details of many of these have been outted to social networking sites. The fact is that we live in a less media centric world where consumers of news can obtain gossip and stories online. It is this that smashes the legal structure and protection that the law affords to individuals to protect, rightly or wrongly, the privacy and reputation. But this in itself is a misnomer, because sites such as Google, Facebook and Twitter are based overseas in jurisdictions with firm legal structures.
Social and search sites can be notified and given due time to remove content that libels clients. But this course this course of action to protect one’s soiled reputation carries it’s own risk – reputation is about trust and trust is won and lost in the court of public opinion. It is the members of this court – you and I, that gathers information and consumes it. The fact is that we live in a world where there is less control, which is why PR should learn this and work within the new structure that social networking has created.
I have given presentations to a series of law firms, highlighting how social media and it’s central pillar of information sharing, which happens cross jurisdictions can undermine their work. The skills and ability to share information without leaving a trace is there. The internet is a channel that crosses geographical boundaries. There is concern that such tactics are being used within journalism to undermine the case for privacy. It is a case of cat and mouse, and at the moment the media is the mouse the law is the old lethargic cat.
Reputations today are being saved and more importantly destroyed by our own human willingness to engage in hearsay and gossip. Individuals, companies and brands spend a lot on projecting an image that attracts business. They should be protected, but only if the actions for which they seek an injunction or super injunction are not duplicitous.
Reputation management is today a skill amongst public relations practitioners that requires real-time management. Controlling a crowd is nigh on impossible. Once the damage is done an injunction will only act as a plaster.
PRs have to work not just with the legal court, but importantly the court of public opinion, a court that is a well briefed by content that is available online.
BREAKING NEWS:
It appears that a UK Premier League player has started legal proceedings against Twitter to secure the disclosure of the currently ‘unknown persons’. Legal firm Schillings said in a statement, “to obtain limited information concerning the unlawful use of Twitter by a small number of individuals who may have breached a court order.”
We assume that such action will be taken by a partner law firm in California, though given that the unlawful act has taken place in the UK, a separate legal jurisdiction, it is going to be tricky to see how this works. Of course, if those people who started the allegations are in the UK then they will not be eligible to America’s Constitution First Amendment, which allows free speech.
Hello. I'm Julio Romo. I'm a London-based independent PR, communications consultant and digital strategist. I am also a freelance journalist and trainer, providing insight and consultancy on how to secure better engagement through the changing media and digital landscape.
Twitter
@simonmacmichael I know Thierry is 34, but sure that he doesn't have white hair just yet! ;) Great picture!! 2 hours ago
How many groats for a herd? @ College Road Toll Gate http://t.co/5sWgwjki9 hours ago
Facebook or Bust, The Audience Is Listening
Friday, September 9th, 2011George Lucas was right, 'The audience IS listening'
Facebook has brought together an audience of incredible numbers. The social networking giant is today a community of people that keeps on growing, creating for businesses an opportunity to reach out directly to consumers. But here lies the question, why are businesses still looking like ‘rabbits in the headlights’ and failing to truly engage with audiences that can help many survive during these hard economic times?
Today, Facebook has over 750 million users worldwide. For many businesses that figure is a fantasy, after all, are we going to engage with so many? So let’s narrow this figure down into more manageable and relevant numbers. In the US there are over 154 million ‘active’ users, Indonesia comes in second with 40 million and a 16 per cent penetration rate, while in the UK there are 30 million users reaching half of the population. Malaysia has over 11 million users accounting for nearly 1 in 2 residents, while Singapore has a very active 2.5 million with 54% of people being on Facebook.
And the figures don’t stop there. Here are some more, more than have of Facebook users access the network each day, half of which do so through their mobile phones. And those that access Facebook through a smartphone or other mobile device are ‘twice as active as Facebook compared to non-mobile users.’
For many companies and organisations, these numbers are very 2-dimensional. The audience is there, but the history and culture of 20 century business dictates that for many they still broadcast to them through a given Facebook Page.
Audience engagement is much more than a Facebook Page and the apps and tabs that these Pages have. It is about, well, engagement. It is about listening and delivering. In business it is about meeting needs. And to meet business needs you needs to re-invent itself, spending time speaking an engaging with your various audiences.
Many companies are focused on the comfort of your own structure. Safe in the knowledge of how they have always delivered their business. But what about your audience? Have they been happy in how they have received your business?
As Facebook show’s us, people today are connected online. For many they check their network, their community first thing in the morning. People seek input, advice and support from their community that they have before they have spent money. Today, people are happy to share bad experience, which shapes many companies brands and reputations.
While engagement is certainly not as cheap as business thinks it is, it creates a much more personal relationship than brands have ever had with it’s audiences. It creates the loyalty, the holy-grail of business relationships that many aspire for.
Think about it this way, how do you like being talked at?
Tags: advertising, audience, business, customer service, engagement, facebook, marketing, recession, relationships, social media, social networking
Posted in comment, social media | No Comments »