Archive | Social Media RSS feed for this section

Link your brand to the campaign

7 Oct

Have you seen the panasonic facebook campaign, the persecution of Rommy Gulla? Basically, for 28 days, they are pulling some pretty nast practical jokes on “Rommy” (obviously an actor) for 28 days.

I don’t get it. It is pretty nasty and in my opinion, it is in effect bullying. If it happened to someone in real life, they would be a complete mess by the end of week one and I don’t see how it advertises products the brand wants it to, other than being lowest common denominator marketing by trying to appeal to jackass fans. Sure, there are competitions and it requires you to come back for 28 days in a row (or just twice, once at the begining and once at the end of the process). Plus, what is the link between the competition and the brand?


P.S. Good to see you again.


Greenpeace ad

20 Apr

Greenpeace does some really powerful ads, the best example I can think of from the top of my head being the Kit Kat palm oil ad.

Here is one that I’ve just seen that is pretty stunning and would have taken a lot of work and, unless it was done pro-bono, would have been pretty costly.

US politico makes huge twitter gaffe

1 Mar

Chuck Todd, NBC political pundit, author and personally a pretty savvy journo made an enormous twitter gaffe after the Canadians beat the US for the Ice Hockey gold medal last night.

During the medal ceremony, Todd tweeted;

Now the Canadians are really rubbing it in; they have the better anthem. #americathebeautifulshouldbeouranthem

I bet you can imagine the storm of angry tweets that followed that one, especially since the Americans would have already been sore from losing. You would have thought that an American political pundit who has his own daily political show would have known he broke two cardinal political rules in the US.

  1. Know your audience
  2. Don’t mess with American patriotism, especially when they just lose to Canada

Why the Parties need to monitor side-wiki

24 Nov

Side-wiki is a newish tool from Google that allows members of the public to place unmoderated comments onto a web page using the google toolbar. Every company needs to start monitoring this new tool,which theoretically can open a pandora’s box. Comments could range from the very positive, to the down-right insulting although, it is too early to say if it could have a real effect on a company’s brand image as it can only be accessed and viewed if you have the Google toolbar and you can only add a comment through a Google login and username. Both however, are very easy to get.

If Google starts indexing comments as part of their search result list, then there could be significant issues.

Below are a few high profile names that have been hit by negative or off-message side wiki posts which include the Labour and Conservative Parties’ home pages. The Liberal-Democrat website has no comments at all.

My particular favourite are the comments on the Sun.

My advice to all organisations, post something on your side-wiki now. You can’t stop people from making comments, but youcan at least try and push them past the fold. There is no way to moderate either.


Labour Party side-wiki comment

Conservative Party side-wiki comment

The Sun side-wiki comment

Tesco side-wiki comment

Walmart side-wiki comment


Is Google more powerful than Murdoch?

16 Nov

After my post last week about Mr Murdoch and his dislike of online content aggregation tools, specifically Google, I was interested this article on TechCrunch as to whether NewsCorp could indeed hurt Google.

My point of view, especially after my detailed chat with my colleague Ged Carroll,  is that he can’t beat Google, but I think he can scare the bejesus out of Google shareholders and then make Google do something it doesn’t necessarily want to.

Theoretically, as was discussed in the TechCrunch article, if Murdoch can convince Bing, Microsoft’s aggregator, to pay for the aggregation rights of NewsCorp material, it could be worth removing NewsCorp from Google’s online rankings. If he can show he is earning more money from Bing, other news companies might follow suit. Then Google has problems.

By stepping up to Google, perhaps he hopes it back down and deal. This would clearly benefit NewsCorp. Like him or loathe him, he’s clever and he must have something up his sleeve.

According to cash alone, despite his many billions of dollars, Google should win this war, but Murdoch is one of a few people in the world that just by saying his name can cause people, especially in the media world, to shake in their boots. Not many people can get through to whatever Head of State he/she wants, when he wants. Murdoch can and that means something.


Lib-Dems overhaul website and digital strategy to increase online audience

11 Nov

Interesting to see what the Liberal-Democrats are doing at the moment to increase their online presence.

Firstly they have overhauled their website which is about time because their old one was awful. I’m not sure about the blue however, but maybe Cameron was right and the Lib-Dems are more aligned to the Tory way of thinking – God I hope not.

Then, according to PR Week,

The Lib Dems will launch a new digital campaigning platform called Act in two weeks, following on from the relaunch of the website last week.

A third website, specifically focused on members and activists, will roll out in approximately one month. ‘It will give them the tools and materials they need for campaigning,’ said Lib Dem CEO Chris Fox.

The moves follow last month’s high-profile launch of the Tories’ e-campaigning platform.

The bulk of the digital work was handled in-house by the party’s digital team, which includes Catherine Turner, David Angell and Sam Lockwood.

Fox added that the party’s technology panel, chaired by MP Lynn Featherstone, oversaw the activity, while digital agency Being worked on the website relaunch.

‘We’ve split the functions into three,’ said Fox. ‘Users want to know what we’re about, then how to do things.’

The Lib-Dems have always been reasonably forward thinking in terms of online politicking and engagement. In late October, the Hansard Society launched a study to say the Lib-Dems had the highest proportion of MPs on Twitter than any party. Labour has numerically much more however.

But, simply having an online presence isn’t the be all and end all of online engagement, it is a matter of what you do with it that matters.

I still think Labour is ahead, but that is just me. I’ve said it before, Labour has the sensational Labour List as well as a number of other sites, which includes bloggers such as activists as well as standing and past MPs. Also there is Bloggers4Labour which is an ok read. Labour Home also exists but I admit I haven’t really gotten to know this site yet, but it seems to be a grass-roots local issues blog/newsite.

The Tories have a presence in the form of personal blogs like Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes, with Conservative Home acting more like a RSS feed than a blog sometimes. Fewer Tory MPs are involved online according to my estimation.

I haven’t done a huge amount of research on it yet, but if anyone out there has the figures for blogging MPs, I’d love to see them. Would be an interesting stat.

Why politicos shouldn’t fight online

10 Nov

I love the way new media and digital communications have become intertwined with political discussion. It will hopefully lead to a bright future of government, political debate, public interaction and general engagement. But It is important to remember, just because it is a public conversational tool, doesn’t mean you need to have a public conversation. People who use social media for reasons other than just saying hi to your friends, should be clever about it and aware of potential ramifications, especially people who are in positions of respect and power.

This was what David Cameron meant when earlier in the year he said that twitter could cause problems for MPs because tweets can be taken out of context or the MPs could get involved in conversations that normally they shouldn’t. These conversations are also permanent and can be dug up at any time.

It is with these comments in mind, over the past few days, I have been watching an argument between Kerry McCarthy MP, Labour Twitter Tsar and Shane Greer, the executive editor of Total Politics.  Both of these people are in positions of power and respect. A senior and respected Member of Parliament on one side and a journalist who has a vast number of followers and loyal readers and edits a magazine with no-particular party politic on the other. People follow what both of these individuals say with interest and they, as a people’s representative and as a member of the fourth estate respectively,  are in a position where it is important where they act and carry themselves properly.

But as you can see from this twitter conversation, things have become a bit out of hand. Remember this all started over what music people should like as a display of their political ideals.

I won’t go into detail about what each said, but to be sure, it has clearly been a case of misrepresentation by both parties. Kerry McCarthy is at fault because she took the bait. But what is concerning is she has taken the bait before as you can see from these conversations with Nadine Dorries MP. In this case, as the Labour Twitter Tsar, Kerry should know better.

Shane Greer is at fault because from what I read, he is being antagonistic from the start. Reacting to a reasonably irreverent comment from Kerry, Shane has gone overboard. The tweet that made Shane bite was “@wallaceme @shanegreer To use that well-worn political phrase, I’m not taking any lessons about Northern Ireland from you two. Or music.”

As you can see, Shane went into a diatribe about being from Northern Ireland and his time there which sounds awful. But if Kerry hasn’t met him or heard his accent and she is right, there is no reason for her to research Shane’s birthplace or personal history. She is also right to suggest it is fairly egotistical to suggest she should know his heritage and she is right to not apologise. He then proceeded to blog about it with gusto.

A spat between these two is fine, it happens. But when these two started off at each other, each others followers and supporters joined in and attack each other. Together they produced this;

As I said, both of these people are in positions of power and respect. Arguments like this turn people off politics, getting involved at the local level and engaging. As you can see, it is a pack mentality, but that is politics, but sometimes, someone needs to be the adult.

This whole argument won’t have any severe ramifications. It won’t lead to resignations and won’t even make the news. But it turns people off. As I said, it is important that people use social media conversational tools wisely.

What are your thoughts?